It's part of social identity theory. BIRGing and CORFing is its core - basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. When the team wins ("we win") , you feel somehow responsible/part of it and wear your team's colors. When "they lose", it is because of some force outside your and the team;s control and you do not wear your support on your sleeve for awhile - until they win.

As for soccer explaining the world, it is truly like diplomacy - lots of action where nothing results, we celebrate what alomost happened, very few intentional goals are realized and each side is ready to kill the other side at a moment's notice.

I'm what you might call a serious Texas Rangers fan, yet I own no team gear and I don't display anything on my car or house that helps bind me to my Ranger-fan neighbors. Yet I do get a kick out of how many Metroplex people are wearing red-white-and-blue these days. It does make North Texas a happier place.

The flip side, as Bob notes, is that the display (usually, though there are counter-examples like Maple Leafs or Cubs fans) evaporates when a team tapers off. The Cowboys have many fans, but not many people are wearing their colors this summer; they've disappointed us for 20 years. I think there's a perverse core fandom shared by those who stick around for the lean years, though. The minute after the last pitch of the 2011 World Series, I was texting my son "wait till next year." Does sharing a hideous loss without bailing provide something to a community, too?

If any are interested in some of the research - http://www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/fans/index.shtml

It depends why you go to games. Marketing people use a term called "sportscape" to describe the entire atmosphere at a ballpark - the game, the comfort of the stadium, appearance, food, ease of access/egress, games.videos/music. For some, the game is enough, but for others, they need the information and sound overload to enjoy the experience. For the Cubs and the Red Sox, the park and environment are as powerful as winning in keeping fans coming back.

It pays off - the 1960-64 Yankees went to five straight World Series and drew 18000 to 23000 per game. Now, 40000 per night attend.

For some, the game is enough, but for others, they need the information and sound overload to enjoy the experience.

Shouldn't there be medication available on the market by now for those "others"?

Marketing people use a term called "sportscape" to describe the entire atmosphere at a ballpark - the game, the comfort of the stadium, appearance, food, ease of access/egress, games.videos/music. For some, the game is enough, but for others, they need the information and sound overload to enjoy the experience. For the Cubs and the Red Sox, the park and environment are as powerful as winning in keeping fans coming back.

It pays off - the 1960-64 Yankees went to five straight World Series and drew 18000 to 23000 per game. Now, 40000 per night attend.

No question that Fenway has helped the Red Sox develop and maintain their mystique, or that without Wrigley the Cubs might be forced back into AAA where they belong. Without Wrigley, they've got nothing to offer but losing.

But I'd attribute most of the Yankees' attendance jump to these factors:

---The increased population in the greater New York area

---The explosion of season ticket purchases by corporate buyers, aided by tax breaks. Take away those tax breaks and you'd stop seeing more than the occasional sellout.

---The successful branding of the Yankee name via replica jerseys, etc., which brings the team name out beyond the stadium on an everyday basis

---The greatly increased number of televised games, not just of the Yankees (who had the majority of their games televised from the late 50's on up) but of their main competitors as well

---Free agency, which has meant that in many or most offseasons the Yankees have been able to add a certified star or three to their next year's roster, which is a clear incentive to pre-season sales

The new park may have something to do with the attendance surge, but then the Yanks were already selling out in their old stadium before the move. And I seriously doubt if anyone's actually coming out to the park just to hear the sound overload. Some people like it, some people tolerate it, and some people stay home in great part because of it, but nobody would stay away from Yankee Stadium if they just turned down the volume.

The only A's gear I own is a costume for a plastic goose. In fact after July 4th is over I think I can get the girlfriend to switch from the Uncle Sam outfit to the A's gear. All right! I own a Giants, hat, too.

Jolly Old - yes I agree. But the point is that if the Yankees only catered to hardcore Yankee baseball fans that only cared about what goes on between the lines, they would have the same attendance levels that they did fifty or sixty years ago. The team makes more money by going from Yankee fans>NYC baseball fans>casual fans>sports fans>bandwagon fans and increasing their potential customers. The park offers items that appeal to the less sophisticated and more marketing opportunities to a larger universe.

Yes. If you took away the tax incentives/breaks for entertainment, you would never have had the modern stadia with luxury boxes and special seating. But then again, the tax incentives for seats have surely not helped Tampa, KC, Pittsburgh...

Yes. baseball was slow to embrace television, as their economic model was all about fans in the seats - not media deals, sponsorships, ads....baseball was even slow to embrace radio!

And yes to free agency as dragging the economic model into the 20th century (thanks Marvin Miller, razzes to Bowie Kuhn) and making the off-season signings extend the period of time in which baseball can get coverage.

Clothing wise I don't have much Yankee stuff (hat and t-shirts, a couple of which I only wear around the house) but I do have piles of other Yankee-related miscellany. Much of that is give-aways, but some of it I paid for.

On the other hand, I'm already scouting what West Ham gear I'll buy then I'm in London, so I guess there's that.