Downtown Baseball Stadium

[GRID]

Average home attendance per season/game:

MLS: 374k/22k
NFL: 529k/66k
NBA: 738k/18k
NHL: 738k/18k
MLB: 1,539k/19k

Nobody comes close to MLB in attendance.

Your figures for MLB are also during covid while the figures for the other leagues don't seem to be covid numbers.

MLB averaged 28k per game in 2019 and it getting back to those numbers. While the numbers you have for the other leagus seems to not be covid numbers.

But yes, MLB is by far the biggest draw. MLB is the most dependent on market size too. This is why MLB is still the premier league for a city to have. Many cities that do have NHL or NBA (or even NFL) and don't have MLB are simply not big enough to have a MLB team even if MLB was their only team. KC is lucky to still have a team despite slipping quite far market size since the 60's when the A's came to town. If KC ever lost MLB again, it would never get that league back. It's just too small now relative to other cities in the country.

You don't want to lose the Royals for an arena team. That would be a downgrade for the city.

But I think KC could support an NBA or NHL team in addition to the teams it has.

[AlkaliAxel]

Average home attendance per season/game:

MLS: 374k/22k
NFL: 529k/66k
NBA: 738k/18k
NHL: 738k/18k
MLB: 1,539k/19k

Nobody comes close to MLB in attendance.

Your figures for MLB are also during covid while the figures for the other leagues don't seem to be covid numbers.

MLB averaged 28k per game in 2019 and it getting back to those numbers. While the numbers you have for the other leagus seems to not be covid numbers.

But yes, MLB is by far the biggest draw. MLB is the most dependent on market size too. This is why MLB is still the premier league for a city to have. Many cities that do have NHL or NBA (or even NFL) and don't have MLB are simply not big enough to have a MLB team even if MLB was their only team. KC is lucky to still have a team despite slipping quite far market size since the 60's when the A's came to town. If KC ever lost MLB again, it would never get that league back. It's just too small now relative to other cities in the country.

You don't want to lose the Royals for an arena team. That would be a downgrade for the city.

But I think KC could support an NBA or NHL team in addition to the teams it has.

This is pretty much correct.

MLB is just as, if not more, popular at the local level than any local NBA team is to their city. However…NBA is significantly more nationally popular and followed. MLB is the king of in-person attendance though for sure. That’s why Indy had to take the NBA team and will never get the MLB!

[normalthings]

Average home attendance per season/game:

MLS: 374k/22k
NFL: 529k/66k
NBA: 738k/18k
NHL: 738k/18k
MLB: 1,539k/19k

Nobody comes close to MLB in attendance.

Your figures for MLB are also during covid while the figures for the other leagues don't seem to be covid numbers.

MLB averaged 28k per game in 2019 and it getting back to those numbers. While the numbers you have for the other leagus seems to not be covid numbers.

But yes, MLB is by far the biggest draw. MLB is the most dependent on market size too. This is why MLB is still the premier league for a city to have. Many cities that do have NHL or NBA (or even NFL) and don't have MLB are simply not big enough to have a MLB team even if MLB was their only team. KC is lucky to still have a team despite slipping quite far market size since the 60's when the A's came to town. If KC ever lost MLB again, it would never get that league back. It's just too small now relative to other cities in the country.

You don't want to lose the Royals for an arena team. That would be a downgrade for the city.

But I think KC could support an NBA or NHL team in addition to the teams it has.

This is pretty much correct.

MLB is just as, if not more, popular at the local level than any local NBA team is to their city. However…NBA is significantly more nationally popular and followed. MLB is the king of in-person attendance though for sure. That’s why Indy had to take the NBA team and will never get the MLB!

this website seems to say that NBA TV Contract is 2.6billionn a year vs 1.6 for MLB

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAS

[shinatoo]

Average home attendance per season/game:

MLS: 374k/22k
NFL: 529k/66k
NBA: 738k/18k
NHL: 738k/18k
MLB: 1,539k/19k

Nobody comes close to MLB in attendance.

Your figures for MLB are also during covid while the figures for the other leagues don't seem to be covid numbers.

MLB averaged 28k per game in 2019 and it getting back to those numbers. While the numbers you have for the other leagus seems to not be covid numbers.

Just doing the best I can with the time I have.

[shinatoo]

Average home attendance per season/game:

MLS: 374k/22k
NFL: 529k/66k
NBA: 738k/18k
NHL: 738k/18k
MLB: 1,539k/19k

Nobody comes close to MLB in attendance.

Your figures for MLB are also during covid while the figures for the other leagues don't seem to be covid numbers.

MLB averaged 28k per game in 2019 and it getting back to those numbers. While the numbers you have for the other leagus seems to not be covid numbers.

But yes, MLB is by far the biggest draw. MLB is the most dependent on market size too. This is why MLB is still the premier league for a city to have. Many cities that do have NHL or NBA (or even NFL) and don't have MLB are simply not big enough to have a MLB team even if MLB was their only team. KC is lucky to still have a team despite slipping quite far market size since the 60's when the A's came to town. If KC ever lost MLB again, it would never get that league back. It's just too small now relative to other cities in the country.

You don't want to lose the Royals for an arena team. That would be a downgrade for the city.

But I think KC could support an NBA or NHL team in addition to the teams it has.

This is pretty much correct.

MLB is just as, if not more, popular at the local level than any local NBA team is to their city. However…NBA is significantly more nationally popular and followed. MLB is the king of in-person attendance though for sure. That’s why Indy had to take the NBA team and will never get the MLB!

I couldn't find the numbers but I did find rankings for TV ratings. NFL is number one, MLB number two and NBA is third. But nobody that has a business in the downtown area cares about TV ratings. All they care about is potential customers. MLB has everyone else beat by miles.

[AlkaliAxel]

It's just so obvious that being downtown increases in-person attendance. Idk how people think that being on an island in the middle of nowhere would have more attendance than a stadium in a area that is literally walking distance to a game, or tram distance.

Furthermore, I think downtown baseball stadium is about changing the culture of the Royals here where it becomes an event to go to downtown instead of right now where you pretty much only go to watch the actual game. The barrier of driving a while and paying for parking makes it so that right now, mostly only actual baseball fans go to watch it. That culture changes with downtown.

[GRID]

It's just so obvious that being downtown increases in-person attendance. Idk how people think that being on an island in the middle of nowhere would have more attendance than a stadium in a area that is literally walking distance to a game, or tram distance.

Furthermore, I think downtown baseball stadium is about changing the culture of the Royals here where it becomes an event to go to downtown instead of right now where you pretty much only go to watch the actual game. The barrier of driving a while and paying for parking makes it so that right now, mostly only actual baseball fans go to watch it. That culture changes with downtown.

I support a downtown stadium, but this is just not true. Winning is really the only thing that really effects attendance.

Milwaukee, LA Angles and Atlanta do not have a downtown stadiums. They have great attendance. LA Dodgers is "near" downtown, but may as well be 20 miles out. Again great attendance.

Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Seattle have amazing downtown stadiums and they don't have great attendance.

Attendance in DC (urban) and Philly (not suburban, but functions like a suburban park) depends on how they are playing. Both can quickly start to sell out or can have crowds under 20k.

The new Miami stadium is not right downtown, but it's not suburban either. Terrible attendance.

Outside the first years of sellouts, Cleveland has never been able to draw that well and they have had some competitive years.

The stadium in Minneapolis has not done much for attendance, they get about the same crowds as KC does.

Does it really matter that the Cards play in downtown StL? They still have a very dead downtown. Everybody bolts right after the game.

I think the two places where the stadium might actually draw people is Denver and San Diego (outside of Fenway and Wrigley which are destinations on their own.) Denver and San Diego draw well regardless of how the team is doing. Their stadiums are embedded in very vibrant downtown districts that are decades ahead of downtown KC. I don't see downtown KC rivaling Denver and San Diego in development ever. Stadium or not.

My point is I don't see a downtowns stadium doing much for attendance in KC. Winning will do that and even winning has its limits in KC. It will be good to have 15-25k people go downtown for every game though. But thinking a stadium downtown is going to increase attendance is really a getting off on the wrong foot. Especially in a suburban oriented metro like KC.

[GRID]

I mean look at sporting KC. That stadium is way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. It feels like you leave metro KC and drive halfway to Topeka when you go there. And yet it's sold out most of the time right? The TSC is less then ten minutes from downtown and you don't see cows when you drive out there like you do in WyCo.

Winning brings fans.

[AlkaliAxel]

I mean look at sporting KC. That stadium is way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. It feels like you leave metro KC and drive halfway to Topeka when you go there. And yet it's sold out most of the time right? The TSC is less then ten minutes from downtown and you don't see cows when you drive out there like you do in WyCo.

Winning brings fans.

Well yeah, winning will bring in fans.

The larger point is how do you bring in fans when you have average to losing seasons...which is the vast vast majority of the Royals seasons.

Those seasons are the ones where you need people going to the game just for fun because it's easy and available despite the teams success. Right now people mostly are only going to games because they're real fans. We want more than just the real fans coming. And they will show up even on average seasons because a downtown stadium in KC would be a draw no matter what.

[beautyfromashes]

Tampa Bay Rays went to the World Series in 2020 and still have terrible attendance. Winning does not cover for a terrible stadium or a terrible location. Have to have both.

[GRID]

I mean look at sporting KC. That stadium is way the hell out in the middle of nowhere. It feels like you leave metro KC and drive halfway to Topeka when you go there. And yet it's sold out most of the time right? The TSC is less then ten minutes from downtown and you don't see cows when you drive out there like you do in WyCo.

Winning brings fans.

...because a downtown stadium in KC would be a draw no matter what.

This is crazy talk. No it won't. Most of KC is less than a 30 minute easy in and out drive to Kauffman Stadium. Any fans you gain by being downtown will be offset by people that don't want to mess with downtown on a weeknight etc.

Having been to all the stadiums and interacted with fans in them all. The location of the stadium has little impact on the people that are at the games.

The problem in Tampa is the stadium is a shitty dome that is a pain to get to from most of the population of metro Tampa. KC does not have a shitty stadium that's a pain to get to get to for 80% of the metro. Kauffman is nearly in the center of the population center of the metro and at the crossroads of two interstates. It's easy to get into that stadium for a quick weekday game and be home by the 10PM news. No different than what downtown will be.

I'm just saying it's not going to increase attendance. If it's not built as part of much larger project, it could even hurt attendance.

Just throwing a stadium in east village is not going to be some game changer for KC attendance.

You have to remember how few people in the center of the city go to games. Of the 2.2 million in metro KC, only about 100k live along the streetcar line and even fewer downtown. People staying in hotels that want to go to a game will go regardless of where the stadium is. People don't just go to a MLB game because their hotel happens to be near the stadium. It's either a part of their plan or it's not.

25,000 people going downtown 80 times a year would be amazing though.

If you are going to build a new stadium. It's time to move it downtown so that the fans that do go to the games can contribute to a more vibrant city center.

[beautyfromashes]

^ I’d agree with all this. You might see some increase based on the novelty of a new stadium but that alone won’t be sustainable. I do think it might increase the finances of the team enough to make them a larger player for good players and, in turn, a more consistent winner on the field. I worry that at the current location the team will fall further behind in residual income to the point of being irrelevant as other cities teams grow income with income from development around the stadiums or more money spent by each fan or merchandise. To me, EV is an easy win. There’s land and I think people would attend. Vine could be a winner too. I think it’s a more difficult sale being further away from existing reataurants and hotels and nightlife, but if they could make it work it might be a bigger return for the team since land prices would be cheaper.

[AlkaliAxel]

It’s not crazy talk. You’d exponentially increase your base of fans who would attend Royals game by going downtown. Stop focusing on suburban fans- that’s for the current Kauffman Stadium. This is about increasing the Royals to new fans who live in the city who don’t care to go to games. But they will now because of convenience and because it will be more of an experience than the island of asphalt currently. Suburban fans will still come too.

If this didn’t increase attendance like this, the Royals wouldn’t be going through this painstaking process to try to do it. An attendance increase long term would be a given, given the location. I don’t know what else to say, this is just the way it is.

[normalthings]

It’s not crazy talk. You’d exponentially increase your base of fans who would attend Royals game by going downtown. Stop focusing on suburban fans- that’s for the current Kauffman Stadium. This is about increasing the Royals to new fans who live in the city who don’t care to go to games. But they will now because of convenience and because it will be more of an experience than the island of asphalt currently. Suburban fans will still come too.

If this didn’t increase attendance like this, the Royals wouldn’t be going through this painstaking process to try to do it. An attendance increase long term would be a given, given the location. I don’t know what else to say, this is just the way it is.

Downtown is closer for JoCo, WyCo, and Platte (most of the suburbs) to get to and much much much easier for tourists.

[kas1]

I'm just gonna say that never in my life has my decision to attend or not attend a sporting event been affected by the location of the event. And that includes living on a college campus and not bothering to walk across the street for games I had tickets to because the team wasn't good enough to be worth caring about that year. I hardly think I'm alone in this. People aren't going to pay good money to spend 3.5 hours of their life at an event that doesn't interest them just because it would have previously taken up 4 hours of their life. Naturally there will always be some person who is exactly on the fence and whose decision could be swayed by a small change in any of the variables, but those people aren't going to put a dent in financing a $500 million stadium. You'd need some 10 million in additional attendance over a short period of time to come up with that money (and not get buried in interest payments). And then you'd need additional attendance on top of that to make up for all the parking revenue that they'll no longer receive. The club averages less than 2 million in annual attendance. You'd literally need to double the attendance levels (basically selling out every game) and sustain it for a decade to turn a profit. It's a pipe dream. If the club puts any significant amount of money towards a new downtown stadium it's absolute pure philanthropy on their part. Taxpayers will eat the cost of this. The only question is whether the long-term quality-of-life benefits justify the price tag. And the burden is on the club to come up a proposal that's good enough to make the answer a yes.

[GRID]

It’s not crazy talk. You’d exponentially increase your base of fans who would attend Royals game by going downtown. Stop focusing on suburban fans- that’s for the current Kauffman Stadium. This is about increasing the Royals to new fans who live in the city who don’t care to go to games. But they will now because of convenience and because it will be more of an experience than the island of asphalt currently. Suburban fans will still come too.

If this didn’t increase attendance like this, the Royals wouldn’t be going through this painstaking process to try to do it. An attendance increase long term would be a given, given the location. I don’t know what else to say, this is just the way it is.

You are right, I don't live 25 miles from two of the most urban ballparks in the country. The vast majority of fans attending any sporting event in any downtown stadium in any city will be from the suburbs. That's just where most people live in American cities. The demographics of who goes to the games will not change that much.

And again. Tourists will have a rental car. Very few people come to KC and stay without a car. A downtown stadium won't change that. People that want to see a game will find their way 8 miles east to Kauffman just as easily. Will it make it easier for them? Of course it will. Will it increase attendance? Why would it? I recall going to a game this fall in Pittsburgh and staying at a hotel across the street. Still only 7000 fans in the stadium. If the hotels and parking cost too much, I would have stayed further out and still gone to the game.

Mark my word, the attendance will not increase just because of the stadium. You might see an increase the first year or two, but then things go right back to where they are now. How are they playing?

normalthings. 250k live in all of WyCo and Platte. A downtown stadium would probably ben 10 minutes closer for them.

However you do realize that the population of the Jackson County suburbs alone is considerably more than that right? And they will have to drive ten minutes further. The most populated parts of JoCo (south) are just as close to the TSC as they are downtown and if they are further, it's a few minutes.

I think everybody is looking for too many reasons to justify a downtown stadium. Attendance is not effected and even economic development is not really spurred by downtown stadiums. At least not by the numbers people like to think. In most cases they tend to hinder development in the immediate areas around them outside a few bars and restaurants.

A downtown stadium will be great for KC and it makes a lot of sense to build it downtown if the Royals need a new stadiums. KC's downtown area is still very ghostownish most of the time. It's just not a very vibrant or busy city. Most of the downtown area has empty sidewalks and streets most of the time. A pro team down there will go a long way in simply making the downtown core more vibrant. At least during game days. That city "bustle" that KC is missing is why I have always wanted a downtown stadium.

But it will attract the same size crowds the royals have always attracted. The bottom 1/4 of the league. Even in 2015, the Royals attendance was high, but more average than high. And people were quickly complaining about ticket prices. That will be the big issue. Will KC people pay higher prices for Royals games. Same deal with NBA and NHL. You can't sit in the upper deck at a Caps game for under $80.

Lot of things effect attendance. The location of the stadium is not one of the primary drivers of attendance. Unless it's far away from most of the metro like the Rays are.

Plus you have to accept the fact that Kauffman Stadium is still one of the best stadiums in the league to watch a game in. If you are a MLB fan at all, Kauffman Stadium is a place you would like to visit. I hear it all the time from other fans in every stadium I visit, they don't care that's not downtown. So it's not like KC is going to go from a crappy stadium. If KC goes too cheap on new park, it could be a downgrade.

[AlkaliAxel]

I had this exact argument with a guy on Twitter and we looked at Target Field and it proved a new stadium in better location did increase attendance beyond the first few years, despite team record.

[GRID]

I had this exact argument with a guy on Twitter and we looked at Target Field and it proved a new stadium in better location did increase attendance beyond the first few years, despite team record.

Twins didn't move downtown. They already were downtown. They moved from a crappy stadium to a nice one. I went to games there. It was a terrible experience.

Not really much around the new stadium even though it's downtown. It's sort of landlocked by parking garages and highways. But it's well served by light rail and commuter rail.

The game experience was improved dramatically.

Like I said, KC already has one of the best in stadium game experiences in the league. Kauffman is great stadium to watch a game especially at night. Tons of Twins fans come to KC every year and rave about the stadium.

So very different scenario. KC is not moving from a crappy stadium, so not really a comparison here.

That's why I say if KC builds a cheap cookie cutter AAA size stadium that doesn't have the fountains and what not, then the stadium experience will actually be a downgrade which could actually hurt attendance.

[AlkaliAxel]

That’s a matter of opinion, because I thought Target Field was good. That ironically supports my point life though that Twins only moved to a slightly better location and got higher attendance, whereas KC would be moving to a significantly better one. This goes beyond Target Field btw.

[GRID]

What are you talking about. I just said Target Field is great. The metrodome sucked. They were both downtown. Location had nothing to do with increased attendance, a new much better stadium did. KC's stadium is fine. It's not just fine, it's one of the best stadiums in the league to watch a game at. So KC Is not going to get more fans with a new stadium, especially if not even as good a place to watch a game as Kauffman is.

You apparently will see what you want to see though.