Accuracy of Sporting Attendances

[Maximus Decimus]

This is something that seems to come up very regularly. The most recent example was the recent Wigan-Hudds game. I decided to put it in here because I think it is a wider point.

My basic question is whether this ever actually happens, and if so how. To be clear, I'm mostly talking about teams exaggerating attendances for reasons of making themselves seem better than they are or saving face when it is too low.

On this forum, it seems to fall into 3 camps: people who think clubs basically don't lie but the inclusion of non-attending free tickets and ST holders can make some games appear lower; people who will claim other sports are lying but get defensive when a RL attendance is questioned (ahem Union calculator) and those who think it can happen in all sports.

I'm in the last camp, but also struggle with the idea of legality and tax. I can't imagine that cash-strapped clubs inflate a crowd, and pay the tax on that just to save face.

However, I've seen many examples of what seem to be obvious exaggeration across many sports. Melbourne Rebels RU used to announce a few thousand (when they rarely did) and you could count the number of people. Similarly, there's an A-League club (Macarthur I think) who had a game that had a man without a dog and was announced over 1000. In RL, I've seen people uncritically praise 8k at Toronto when it had a virtually empty stand in a capacity of 8.5k. I recently said that Toulouse crowds don't seem right to me, and faced a degree of ridicule for even suggesting it.

I've seen people move from being firmly skeptical about crowd figures being fudged, to realising that the Challenge Cup final announcements can't add up.

So what is the reality? My gut says that there must be a way of exaggerating that doesn't affect tax like thousands of free tickets being included. Maybe it is easier to do in some countries than others.

I'm obviously open to being proved wrong and pointed to how it cannot happen. Similarly, if anybody knows first hand of examples where it has happened I'm all ears.

What do other people think explains the apparent discrepancy?

[Padge]

You need to differentiate between attendance, tickets issued and receipts. 

Many years ago clubs were often accused of understating attendance to avoid tax and reduce the payout to the visiting club.

Bradford and Hillsborough changed everything, well the Safety at Sports Grounds Act that followed did. This meant clubs had to know exactly how many people where in each section of a ground. If you can find a copy of the Green Guide it's all in there.

Next big influence was much more TV exposure and the value of sponsorship. Having more eye balls on the product makes it more valuable, so tickets sold rather than attendance becomes a useful figure.

Receipts are the most important figure as far as a clubs health is concerned.

Not really bothered what clubs use because what is important is the trend not individual numbers.

Edited March 29 by Padge

[Maximus Decimus]

35 minutes ago, Padge said:

You need to differentiate between attendance, tickets issued and receipts. 

Many years ago clubs were often accused of understating attendance to avoid tax and reduce the payout to the visiting club.

Bradford and Hillsborough changed everything, well the Safety at Sports Grounds Act that followed did. This meant clubs had to know exactly how many people where in each section of a ground. If you can find a copy of the Green Guide it's all in there.

Next big influence was much more TV exposure and the value of sponsorship. Having more eye balls on the product makes it more valuable, so tickets sold rather than attendance becomes a useful figure.

Receipts are the most important figure as far as a clubs health is concerned.

Not really bothered what clubs use because what is important is the trend not individual numbers.

Regards the general fan, they are mostly interested in the attendance as an indicator of comparative popularity in relation to past seasons, other clubs and other sports. Of course, real health far more complicated than that.

I wouldn't even say that they are bothered whether a figure of 16,000 is 100% accurate but that when they hear 16,000 it is using the same metric as they do for all their other games; and as other teams do for their games. If there is actually 14,167 there but they have included non-attending ST holders, non-attending tickets and a similar proportion of freebies as other clubs then there is no issue.

Where it becomes a 'problem' is if this isn't comparable. For instance, if the 15,611 at Huddersfield yesterday had a far higher percentage of those non-attendees than their game against Leigh (16,370) then they'll get accused of exaggerating attendances. To look at those two games on the highlights, there certainly doesn't appear be a difference of only 800. To use the stands behind the sticks as an example, against Huddersfield one was 90% empty and the other prob 60%. Against Leigh, there was an away following of note (although disappointing) and the main Wigan stand was much more populated.

This is made worse by differences between clubs. If one team has 10/15% of these non-attendees in the figure and another has 30-40% then essentially we're getting into the realm of fudging/exaggerating attendances.

 

[Padge]

11 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Regards the general fan, they are mostly interested in the attendance as an indicator of comparative popularity in relation to past seasons, other clubs and other sports. Of course, real health far more complicated than that.

I wouldn't even say that they are bothered whether a figure of 16,000 is 100% accurate but that when they hear 16,000 it is using the same metric as they do for all their other games; and as other teams do for their games. If there is actually 14,167 there but they have included non-attending ST holders, non-attending tickets and a similar proportion of freebies as other clubs then there is no issue.

Where it becomes a 'problem' is if this isn't comparable. For instance, if the 15,611 at Huddersfield yesterday had a far higher percentage of those non-attendees than their game against Leigh (16,370) then they'll get accused of exaggerating attendances. To look at those two games on the highlights, there certainly doesn't appear be a difference of only 800. To use the stands behind the sticks as an example, against Huddersfield one was 90% empty and the other prob 60%. Against Leigh, there was an away following of note (although disappointing) and the main Wigan stand was much more populated.

This is made worse by differences between clubs. If one team has 10/15% of these non-attendees in the figure and another has 30-40% then essentially we're getting into the realm of fudging/exaggerating attendances.

 

I thought we were discussing attendances in sport in general and not specific RL games, willing to discuss it but should be in the RL section.

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

I thought we were discussing attendances in sport in general and not specific RL games, willing to discuss it but should be in the RL section.

I'm only using RL as the example I know best, and using it to make a wider point about potential reporting of attendances.

The reason I included it in here, was largely because many RL fans will scoff at the idea that a team like Toulouse might be exaggerating but will also have no problem believing that Union or other sports do it all. 

I did include in my above post a reference to comparisons between sports. Australia is probably the best example for this as teams rarely sellout games across different sports. Say at the Allianz stadium in Sydney, I think most people would assume that when the Waratahs, Roosters or Sydney FC report a figure they are using the same metric.

My essential question is about whether teams in any sport actually can manipulate attendances or not; after all it is naive to think that one sport does it and another doesn't. I think most people would assume they can and actually do, but this seems like it would have logistical issues.

 

 

[Padge]

Another thing that people don't understand is "sell out".

Sell out means all tickets available have been sold, this may not be the grounds capacity. Why? It comes down to allocated or unallocated seating. Unallocated seating requires less stewarding, but means some slack must be left in the capacity. i.e, you cannot sell all of the seats available in the stadium.