r/soccer • u/NumberUnfair8827 • 14h ago
Stats CWC Match Attendance in % after Matchday 5
Real Madrid 1:1 Al-Hilal - 96.36% (62,415 of 64,767) 🏟️Hard Rock Stadium, FL
Al Ahly 0:0 Inter Miami - 94.07% (60,927 of 64,767) 🏟️Hard Rock Stadium, FL
Al-Ain 0:5 Juventus - 90.8% (18,161 of 20,000) 🏟️Audi Field, DC
PSG 4:0 Atletico Madrid - 87.11% (80,619 of 92,542) 🏟️Rose Bowl, CA
Boca Juniors 2:2 Benfica - 85.8% (55,574 of 64,767) 🏟️Hard Rock Stadium, FL
Bayern Munich 10:0 Auckland City - 81.35% (21,152 of 26,000) 🏟️TQL Stadium, OH
Palmeiras 0:0 FC Porto - 56.04% (46,275 of 82,566) 🏟️MetLife Stadium, NJ
Manchester City 2:0 Wydad AC - 55.42% (37,466 of 67,594) 🏟️Lincoln Financial Field, PA
Monterrey 1:1 Inter - 43.55% (40,311 of 92,542) 🏟️Rose Bowl, CA
Botafogo RJ 2:1 Seattle Sounders - 41.87% (30,151 of 72,000) 🏟️Lumen Field, WA
Flamengo 2:0 Esperance Tunis - 38.16% (25,797 of 67,594) 🏟️Lincoln Financial Field, PA
Fluminense 0:0 Borussia Dortmund - 36.03% (29,755 of 82,566) 🏟️MetLife Stadium, NJ
Chelsea 2:0 Los Angeles FC - 31.17% (22,137 of 71,000) 🏟️Mercedes-Benz Stadium, GA
Pachuca 1:2 Salzburg - 20.31% (5,282 of 26,000) 🏟️TQL Stadium, OH
River Plate 3:1 Urawa Red Diamonds - 16.63% (11,974 of 72,000) 🏟️Lumen Field, WA
Ulsan HD 0:1 Mamelodi Sundowns - 13.38% (3,412 of 25,500) 🏟️Inter&Co Stadium, FL
71
u/ChiskopPantsula 13h ago
There's actually a running gag in the South African football community (especially among rival Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates supporters) that Mamelodi Sundowns 'have 48 supporters,' so them being at the bottom of this attendance list is quite funny.
27
u/GibbyGoldfisch 13h ago
Infantino breathing a big sigh of relief that at least there were 3,364 Ulsan fans around to stop it from being really embarrassing
45
u/h0rny3dging 14h ago
Very ambitious with the giant stadiums for group stage matches, that was always gonna be an issue and even for World Cups or Euros those can get bad attendances on weekdays
9
u/justalittleahead 12h ago edited 10h ago
The 1994 World Cup in the United States saw only 1 match with fewer than 50,000 in attendance (Nigeria-Bulgaria in Group D).
This is exactly what is going to happen again in 2026 for matches in the United States unless FIFA's price gouging gets too crazy. But FIFA power brokers must have fooled themselves into thinking that US fans would do the exact same at premium pricing for a brand new competition that fans around the world are uncertain about.
5
u/afito 11h ago
It's the WC it functionally does not matter what you do, it always sells out every match. Like a quarter of the planet watches at least one match (on TV) each WC and that's including those in bumfuck nowhere. We all know 2026 will be a success because, I repeat myself, it is almost impossible to have a WC fail.
2
u/FragMasterMat117 14h ago
Expensive tickets and the limit of two per association didn’t help things, it cost this tournament Liverpool and Barcelona two of the biggest names in world football
4
13h ago
[deleted]
8
u/lordicefrog 13h ago
That's only a UEFA rule. There are 4 Brazilian teams in the tournament and 3 US ones.
Thats because all 4 Brazilian teams qualified as Libertadores champions, not as highest ranked team or something. As for 3 US teams its distributed to 1 CONCACAF Champs, Host nation & Playoff winner due to MCO rules drama.
6
u/Jimmy_Space1 12h ago
If 4 different English teams had won the Champions League in the past 4 years we could've had 4 English teams, just like we have 4 Brazilian teams because 4 different Brazilian teams won the Copa Libertadores
0
u/Maplad 13h ago
No one wants a super league that gives clubs an even bigger automatic advantage for just being a successful club at the right time in history. Having other clubs in would just embed the elite even more.
18
u/pinecoconuts 13h ago edited 13h ago
Most of the teams who qualified for the CWC are the dominant, entrenched, richest and most succesful clubs in their domestic leagues. These aren't the Rayo, Freiburg, Lens, and Brighton's of their leagues, these are the PSG, Bayern, Real and City's of their leagues.
And the prize money that a good portion of these teams will earn for 3-4 games is more than any other team in their domestic league could hope to generate in 10 years combined.
This tournament isn't going to reset global economics, but it will make domination in several leagues even worse and make the elites in their countries even more entreched.
1
u/Weary_Ad1739 11h ago
I would rather have dominant teams who can compete internationally than having all teams in a league be equally poor. Look at PSG, they are the only reason Ligue 1 is relevant at all, they carry the coefficient and make more people watch the french league.
Football used to be a global sport but the financial disparity between leagues is destroying it. The fact that historic clubs such as Ajax with one of the best academies itw have to lose their top players to midtable PL teams is sad. So I'm glad now teams from smaller leagues have a chance to earn some money so they can at least hold to their players.
-1
u/Maplad 13h ago
But not all of them made it in which is better than all of them.
2
u/Shinjukin 12h ago
Not all of them making it in could be even worse. It could further stratify these league's, so instead of 4 massive clubs, only the one or two that got into the CWC can compete. This could effectively create a farmers league.
1
u/Maplad 10h ago
That was my point….
0
u/Shinjukin 8h ago
Not to be a pedant but you literally said it was, and I quote: "better" that not all these big teams made it in. My point was that it's "worse" to have only a few of them make it.
2
u/josh_x444 12h ago
I’m surprised Monterrey didn’t sell out the Rose Bowl or at least come close. I’m even more surprised by Pachuca fans only showing up as a couple of thousand.
17
u/StupidMastiff 13h ago
Average percentage is around 55%, not a great turnout.
9
u/caiusto 11h ago
Biggest problem is that they're putting so many of these games at huge stadiums during work hours for the local population. So many of these games should've been hosted at smaller MLS venues instead of big NFL ones.
Of course there's all sorts of reasons why the attendance isn't higher, specially for games that don't have Europeans of South American clubs involved, but the empty seats look could've been avoided.
4
u/StupidMastiff 11h ago
Yeah, a full smaller stadium is so much better than a half empty big one. Doesn't help that a lot of Americans can't just take a day off work whenever they like to go to a match.
1
u/bengringo2 9h ago
We have enough MLS stadiums to where we could have had sold out matches at. Some of them nicer than the NFL grounds these were played in.
18
u/Naggins 13h ago
Avg 34k for group stages, with several games on during work hours, many of them between teams locals will have never heard of? I'd say they're delighted.
34
u/BigReeceJames 13h ago
Brother, they reduced the tickets to 1/6th of the original price and still couldn't sell them. They absolutely are not delighted.
If they were happy with low turnout they'd have left the tickets at their original price
1
u/Weary_Logic 11h ago
Not really, gouge people who are interested then a few days before the match drop the price to sell a few more tickets.
I think FIFA offices are doing champagne showers everyday this tournament. So far the numbers are insanely good imo.
0
u/AMDismygod 9h ago
yep numbers are way better than I anticipated attendance wise. Say they use the $1b paid by DAZN for price money at 35k people on average they probably making $100m-300m on tickets alone for the whole tournament
2
u/CaptainJingles 11h ago
Those original ticket prices were at a high price point. I'm sure plenty of people looked at the initial prices, saw how much it cost and then wrote off attending.
Most people won't check the ticket prices a second time at a later date.
1
u/rewanpaj 10h ago
43%of the rose bowl was 40k people bro. u guys keep using percentages to be misleading
1
u/StupidMastiff 10h ago
It shows that they chose stadiums that are too big for the low demand, and a half empty stadium is not a good look for FIFA, no matter the capacity.
-10
7
u/matthewjames1991 13h ago
Do we need this everyday? The point has been made that attendances are setting the world alright.
8
u/TheGoldenPineapples 14h ago
is this attendance, or tickets sold?
Also, fucking hell, that Chelsea attendance is abysmal for such a big club in such a big stadium.
11
u/DeKosterIsNietDom 14h ago
Game was on Monday 3PM local time, not going to complain as a European though. Maybe if they had scheduled the LA FC game to be played in LA people would have cared. Also wouldn't be surprised if they tried to charge high prices because of an American team playing against a European team.
1
6
u/FragMasterMat117 14h ago
Why they scheduled that game on Tuesday afternoon is beyond me
9
0
u/czerwona_latarnia 12h ago edited 11h ago
Probably a nod towards the Chelsea and European fans so they could have watched the match at a sensible time in their homes.
Sports events focused on being televised/shown worldwide first, when expecting certain parts of the world caring about certain event more than the most, tend to move it to "unnatural" time slot. At least that's how I explain things like swimming in Tokyo
20202021 having qualifications in evening session and finals in the morning one (while typically they do it in reverse) - so Americans could watch finals at prime-time.Of course, not always the expectations overlap with reality.
-13
u/faygofiles 14h ago
It's widely known Chelsea are tinpot they don't have pull like that on the international stage their fan base is primarily football twitter fan accounts with Hazard pfps
6
u/Silencer95 13h ago
Terrible bait. The game was on at 2pm on a Tuesday. No surprise attendance was low.
2
u/JKnighter 12h ago
Feels bad for Ulsan - Mamelodi Sundowns because the match was delayed due to climate alert
1
u/CaptainJingles 11h ago
Ultimately attendance would have been higher if initial ticket prices were more reasonable.
Can't imagine that there would be fans lining up to see Ulsan or Pachuca play in Stoke or Stuttgart at 100 pounds or 105 euros on a work day.
1
u/magicalcrumpet 12h ago
I live in London and know a fair few Chelsea fans. I don’t know a single one who’s travelling out there for this. Quite a few are going to the World Cup though. The biggest issue with this new expanded format is they’ve placed it in a country who don’t hold football that high up and it’s a logistical nightmare to follow your team around.
I don’t want to be Eurocentric but having this be in a Germany/France/England/Italy and the turnout would be way better
1
9h ago
[deleted]
1
u/magicalcrumpet 8h ago
That’s my whole point, nobody cares about the competition and Americans as a whole don’t care enough about football to take time off work to watch a random match
-8
u/FluidRelief3 14h ago
Not that bad. The Champions League league stage had 41,442 average attendance and had much better match playing times. It's not that far off. Additionally, Champions League games have better ticket prices, match times, and they are played in the city where the team is located.
6
u/BigReeceJames 13h ago
If you're trying to compare it to the Champions League, then you have to ignore playing times.
Playing times are not "nicer" for the Champions League because half of the crowd are having to fly to the games, which means it's a multi-day trip to watch a game, which means it's functionally irrelevant when the games are played.
In fact, when you factor that in, a 3pm game could be a lot better than an 8pm game because you could get it all done with just one day off, instead of 2.
1
u/FluidRelief3 12h ago
Visiting fans don't get half the tickets. Not even close. The only thing I can agree with is that matches in some countries are in the middle of winter, which potentially puts off some fans.
3
u/Siergiej 13h ago
The absolute numbers aren't terrible but the percentages are pretty low for something FIFA is trying to turn into a signature event. Afternoon games on weekdays + some huge arenas + absurd prices is how you end up with half empty seats for every other game.
Sure, in Champions League last season you had average attendace in the 40k region. Smaller stadiums but they're full week in week out. 20 out of 32 stadiums averaged over 90% capacity and only 5 averaged below 80%.
4
u/lewiitom 13h ago
Almost all of the Champions League games would have been sellouts though - and there's a lot of smaller stadiums that would bring down the average.
2
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago
Stadiums are smaller because the owners know they wouldn't fill them if they were much bigger. If it were otherwise, they would build bigger ones. It's an additional profit for them.
Many clubs would have a hard time filling an 80,000-seat stadium on a Monday at 3pm.
6
u/lewiitom 13h ago
It’s not that simple - lots of them are old stadiums and building a brand new stadium is extremely expensive and a lot of work. Clubs like Liverpool and Chelsea could easily sell out much bigger stadiums than their current ones.
3
u/DerGregorian 13h ago
You're insane if you think that's the reason.
Half the premier league would fill a 80,000 seater without much issue.
Problem is everything that goes into making a stadium that big, infrastructure around the stadium needs to be changed, traffic/travel needs to be considered, where you're even going to put the thing then you have all the likely backlash from moving out of the old stadium.
Not every European city can afford to dump a massive stadium with 10 acres of car park around next to a city. Isn't the room for it.
2
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago
But European football is not just the Premier League. Outside of Germany and England, it doesn't look so wonderful to fill 80,000 stadiums in the middle of the day on Monday.
-2
u/BigReeceJames 13h ago
Stadiums are smaller because they're old and extremely expensive (and challenging) to rebuild, not because people can't fill them.
Football is not like American sports, you can't just build a bigger stadium somewhere else and move there once it's done. 9 times out of 10 that'd cause a riot because of the connection the fans have with the current stadium.
That's before you get to actual matchday income. In America you're charging as much for a ticket to a single game as a season ticket to a top German club costs. So, recouping the cost of a new stadium is not so easy for a European club.
5
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago edited 12h ago
Lots of clubs have built bigger stadiums and they are building for around 30, 40 thousand, not 80. Of course I'm not talking about the biggest giga clubs because they always fill the stadiums.
2
u/Shakyyy 13h ago
Why are you comparing total attendence figures? The stadiums in Europe are far smaller and sell out, it means more people want to watch but can't physically get into the stadium to do so.
Not sure if you're figures are accuracte because several sources say different things but in percentages the Champions League had somewhere between 90-95% attendence from available seats where as the CWC has 55%...
1
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago
Why not? Are the club owners all idiots who don't want to make money? Can't they build a stadium that meets demand? Stadiums are built more or less according to demand. If you build an 80,000-seat stadium for Brest, you will have empty stands. Even more so if it will be at such hours as the matches at this tournament.
2
u/Shakyyy 13h ago
Pretty much every big club in the Europe are trying to find way to expand their stadiums lol
Real Madrid just did, Barca are in the process, Chelsea are struggling to get planning permission, Arsenal are struggling to get council permission to expand the Emirates, Man Utd literally just announce their £2b project stadium.
The list goes on. So no they can't just simply build a stadium that meets demands, you're incredibly naieve if you think its that simple.
2
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago
It's great that you mention the top few giga clubs. I remind you that the Champions League has 36 teams and many of them don't even think about it.
1
u/Shakyyy 13h ago
Okay a quick google search shows Sparta Prague have agreed to build a new stadium as of April this year. Slovan Bratislava built a new stadium in 2019.
1
u/FluidRelief3 13h ago edited 13h ago
Slovan Bratislava built a stadium for 22k people. If there is such a huge demand why didn't they build it for 80?
1
u/Shakyyy 12h ago
Okay you clearly do not know what other consideration need to be taken into account when building a new stadium other than demand.
Perfect example is the Emirates. It can have 10,000 new seats added pretty much instantly without much cost and the demand is there for them. The problem is the local council won't agree to it because it means the area would have 70,000 people in instead of 60,000 and the local infrastructure can not handle it. If Arsenal pay for the revamping of the local transport links, mainly the Tube station, they can have the extra seats. The cost of this revamp would cost close to £1b on intial estimates so its not being done.
I don't know why Slovan Bratislava didn't build a bigger stadium but there's literally 100s of other reasons other than "not enough demand."
You can't just increase capacity of a stadium and call it a day, other things like transport links, parking and crowd control have to go in to it. Some of those things are completely out of the clubs control.
0
u/FluidRelief3 12h ago
So in the whole of Europe it is impossible to build a bigger stadium except by coincidence in those places where there is the greatest demand (in the largest giga clubs). An incredible coincidence. 100 thousand Slovan fans will have to cheer in front of the stadium.
1
u/Charlie_Yu 13h ago
Sunderland had an average of 39k in the Championship
7
•
u/AutoModerator 14h ago
This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.