Quote: Gallanteer "Lies, damn lies and statistics. Bums on seats (or feet on terraces) you can actually see.
Ultimately though, even for TV viewers, if less people attend matches, it reduces the atmosphere of the game and the enjoyment of watching it especially for neutrals and those without a specific allegiance. Away fans play a part in this.'"
You can "see" TV audiences. It's what broadcasters look at when they determine whether or not a sport is worthwhile investing in. It's what potential sponsors look for. It's absolutely tangible and, as the sport's biggest revenue source, it should be prioritised.
Nobody is saying that we want fewer people to attend games. What I would suggest is that making decisions about the direction of this sport based on spurious ideas about "away fans" is misguided. We can generate atmosphere without away supporters (as evidenced by the atmosphere at many international events) and by other sports where 'away fans' is less of a factor. Most American sports are "made for TV" and command huge TV audiences, yet away fans and the contribution that they make to the TV product don't even register in the debate.
Quote: Gallanteer "As for the atmosphere not being important'"
I never said it wasn't. My argument is that you don't necessarily need "away fans" to generate that and, given that you brought up the idea of what is and isn't tangible, the value of "atmosphere" is about as intangible as it gets.
Quote: Gallanteer "t expansionism isn't the magic bullet to fix the game's financial situation.'"
I don't think there is any sensible poster on here who believes it is. It is simply one part of the equation and expansion is, in my opinion, an opportunity cost worth taking.
Quote: Gallanteer "Money is (obviously) and getting bigger crowds, generating more interest locally and word of mouth about how good it is, is all part of that solution. You can't force people to like the sport because it's now global, you encourage people to like it if they like what they see in person and on the TV and an atmosphere in the live games is all important to that aim.'"
So we're back to "the way to improve this sport and get more money into it is to focus on the heartlands". The problem is that nobody seems to have any idea as to how doing that makes this sport relevant in the modern sports and media market. We have an aging audience that advertisers and the wider media don't care about, an audience that is generally hostile to any attempt by the clubs of governing body to try and generate more revenue from the supporter base, and people still think that focusing on this audience is going to change that? Word of mouth marketing isn't going to scratch the surface here simply because of the biggest failing with word-of-mouth - that people only tend to talk to people who are like them.
You're right, you can't force people to like this sport - that is not and never has been what marketing is about. But you can take this sport and make it more interesting, more exciting and more accessible to new audiences. And that's where expansion (amongst various other things) comes into the equation. If the existing clubs can do that, fantastic. But I don't think that they can.
