Football Attendance - Interested or Not?

The biggest hits we have had for a story in the recent past was a table of average attendances for the past season in the top 30 European clubs.   Barcelona came top, followed by Borussia Dortmund and then Manchester United.   You can see the full table here: http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/top-thirty-football-clubs-europe-ranked-attendances

The story raises a broader issue.   Why are we so interested in attendances?   On one level the detailed study of attendances is the preserve of stattos and there are fewer of those in football than in cricket or baseball where the game itself gives endless scope for constructing statistics that track the flow of play or the performance of particular players.

Nevertheless, the interest in figures goes well beyond a few anoraks.   Fans can become very upset when the numbers they can see in the ground fall well short of the announced attendance figures. But the Football League imposes a 3 per cent levy on ticket sales and this includes season tickets.   Many season ticket holders do not turn up for every game: they often live a long way away, often abroad, and like to be able to return to their familiar seat when they do attend.

Gate money is still an important part of the financial model of bigger clubs.   Arsenal achieved a 99.4 per cent capacity (60361) at the Emirates last season while Manchester United were probably disappointed with 99.1 per cent of their 75797.   Spurs were third in the capacity table, but that was at a ground that can hold just 36230.   The capacity of White Hart Lane is holding the club back and some fans have launched a community share scheme in a bid to raise funding.   At the other end of the spectrum Wigan achieved 66.9 per cent capacity in a ground that holds 16812.

The hope is that once fans are inside the ground they will spend more money on over priced drinks and pies.   A BBC survey has shown tremendous variation in what they are charged.   A pie at Arsenal will set you back £4 but if you fancy a trip to St. Johnstone you can get one for £1.50.   The programme there costs just £1 (most clubs don’t make much out of the programme)

Incidentally, attendance figures from the past are probably not all that reliable.   There are stories of gatekeepers pocketing part of the proceeds, but probably a bigger problem was money being siphoned off so it didn’t have to be declared for tax (at one time there was an ‘entertainment’ tax which applied to football).

Probably one of the reasons why fans are interested in attendance figures is that it is a matter of prestige rather than money.   The claim to be a ‘big’ club has a lot to do with how many fans you can get in the ground.  

Of course, sometimes the temptation is to expand the stadium in the hope that the fans will follow and there are plenty of cases where that has gone wrong but also cases where it has worked well (newly promoted Chesterfield and the b2net Stadium where crowds went up 81 per cent last season compared with the old Saltergate ground).   Bristol Rovers hope that moving to a new 20,000 seater stadium will boost them relative to rivals Bristol City.   Incidentally, that will make them the first Football League club to play on a college campus (that of the University of West of England).

Our stories about non-league clubs always attract a lot of interest as did one I posted about the third tier non-league club I help to run.   Even at the third tier of the non-league, football clubs cost quite a lot of money to run.  The annual accounts of the club in which I am involved were recently published for the year to 30 June 2010.  One fact that immediately stands out is that even at this level player remuneration accounted for 65 per cent of turnover.   The pressure is there to hire the best players.

On turnover of £177,000, there was an operating loss of just over £45,000 which was largely made up by loans from directors and share purchases.   Match receipts accounted for 40 per cent of turnover, followed by bar takings at 23 per cent and donations which accounted for 21 per cent.

What was striking was the value of a cup run at this level, only £150 in prize money being received in the accounting year in contrast with £8,400 the previous year.   The club has also been hit by two winters in which many matches had to be cancelled because of bad weather.   This hits cash flow, particularly bar takings and attendances are never as high when the games are replayed midweek. In particular the Boxing Day (26 December holiday) fixture which was postponed last year can often attract a four figure crowd.

How long will it be this season before the first manager is sacked?   Not that long if prior experience is anything to go by.   As the season progresses, we can expect more managers to be sacked.   Managerial tenure is become shorter.

But does sacking the manager actually make a difference?   Sue Bridgewater of Warwick Business School in her book Football Management suggests that it does not: 'managerial changes in football do little to improve performance.'

She notes, 'if we look at the Premier League since 1992 it would appear that ... clubs do rather less well once the initial honeymoon period has passed than they did before changing their manager.'   If, for example, a manager was dismissed 18 games into the season the club - on  average - might gain around 3 points in the 12 game upturn but lose 2 points over the remaining games.'

In short, 'A net gain of one point for a considerable outlay and ongoing lower performance.'   Sue's analysis of club finances suggests that spending money on better players might have a greater effect than using it to pay off the manager.

Why should this be so?   It may well be that we exaggerate the impact of leadership on performance.  The manager is the first person fans blame.   They are less likely to blame the players, although often they have a 'scapegoat player' who is monitored closely for every defect in his performance.   Any good piece of play is dismissed as a fluke and it's the manager's fault for selecting him in the first place.

In practice, 'performance might be affected by the quality of players, injuries or just luck rather than anything which the manager does.'   I would add to that list poor decisions by officials: I am not convinced that they necessarily balance out over a season.

In any case there are downsides to getting rid of the manager.   It 'brings with it disruption which, in itself, can have a negative effect on performance.'    There are different phases in a football manager's lifespan and 'performance may take a downturn whilst the manager is rebuilding for the longer term.'

Of course, Sue Bridgewater points out that all this does not mean that a club should never change the manager.   This may be necessary when there is sustained decline in performance, although what is difficult is to decide what is a sustained decline and what is a blip.

In general, however, the data suggest that 'clubs panic and pull the trigger during minor blips in performance rather than a sustained decline.   Moreover, the lever at which they do this is getting higher, and the benefits gained from the switch may be less significant than they anticipate.'   I doubt whether this good advice will influence any clubs in panic mode after a poor string of results.

Wyn Grant is a regular contributor to Albion Road and also the publisher of footballeconomy.com, a website covering the business and economy of the game of football.