Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Berg: Dear everybody

Dear everybody,

Very often a baseball team announces an attendance for a game that seems way higher than the number of people who are actually at the game. I realize this is funny or strange or concerning to you, so you note it in your blog or newspaper column or talk-radio monologue. But for better or worse, Major League teams announce the paid attendance at games — the number of tickets sold, not the number of asses in seats — and have, I believe, for every game since 1992.

So if the paid attendance figure seems to have no bearing on the number of people actually in attendance at a ballgame, you can feel free to either dismiss it entirely, or note it and mention without snark that the figure represents tickets sold, as per standard baseball practice and not any conspiracy peculiar to that baseball team.

I know you’re not actually listening to me, everybody, but I wish you would because you just keep bringing up this same distinction between announced attendance and actual attendance like you’re the first person to ever notice it, when meanwhile Maury Brown wrote a whole thing last year explaining why it happens and how it’s actually worse in other sports.

Good day, and I look forward to seeing photographs of your cats.

Thanks,
Ted

JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 19, 2012 at 09:44 AM | 27 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: attendance, media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. salvomania Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4110596)
I thought only the AL counted tickets sold, whereas the NL actually counted asses in seats.

Maybe that all changed in 1992 around the time when they combined the baseballs, and combined the umps????
   2. BDC Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4110601)
I'll bite: why wouldn't it be interesting to note an extreme discrepancy between tickets sold and people there? The Rangers announce 30-35,000 tickets sold, and generally I look around the Ballpark and there seem to be that many people there. If some other team announces 12,000, or 20,000, or 35,000 and you can patently see that there's a fifth or a tenth that many, isn't that worth commenting and musing on? I mean, why did Nameless Team sell so many more tickets than they attracted people to their game?
   3. Bob Evans Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4110604)
It's still snark-worthy. If the Cubs "sell" their tickets to their scalping outfit, it doesn't matter to the rest of us that that entity couldn't unload them. Asses in seats is what matters to the rest of us.
   4. Guapo Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4110609)
   5. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4110614)
BDC, I agree with your point that unused tickets are relevant to gauging interest in a team, but Berg's point is about the attitude of the people who point it out to suggest that the team is choosing sold over attendance in an attempt to deceive fans.
   6. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:46 PM (#4110621)
This piece seems to be attacking a strawman. I'm sure some people do exactly what he's saying but the only quote he gives is from a 2005 article by Bill Shaikin. It feels very out of the blue. I don't particularly care one way or the other what they are using for "attendance" but I suspect the people that it matters too (team accountants, other teams for revenue sharing) the paid number is a hell of a lot more important than asses in the seats.

Maybe that all changed in 1992 around the time when they combined the baseballs, and combined the umps????


Didn't the umps combine after the '99 umpire strike?
   7. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: April 19, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4110633)
I caught the replay of the Miami game from yesterday today. The paid attendance was announced as 25,723 but it looked like 12 people showed up for the game. The standard camera angle of behind the pitcher had only two fans onscreen behind home plate for at least the first inning of the game.
   8. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 19, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4110646)
BDC, I agree with your point that unused tickets are relevant to gauging interest in a team, but Berg's point is about the attitude of the people who point it out to suggest that the team is choosing sold over attendance in an attempt to deceive fans.

Well, they are, right? They're announcing an "attendance" that includes thousands of people that didn't attend.

They're just joined in the charade by every other team.
   9. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: April 19, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4110716)
"Attendance" as a descriptor of fan interest or consumption is sort of peculiar to sports anyway. You hardly hear about "attendance" for a concert (other than venue capacity) or for a movie in wide release. Those things are gauged in terms of revenue. "Attendance" is a synonym of "turnout," but sports parlance has expanded the definition of the former by adding mushy words like "announced" or whatever. However, if you take MLB officials at face value, "deceiving the fans" is not why MLB uses tickets sold as the measurement. The blog post quotes the 2005 article, which in turn quotes Rich Levin as saying, "It’s because of revenue sharing,” Levin said. “That’s what we use in our official count."

But I don't see what the big deal is whether snarking on a big "attendance" discrepancy. As noted above, even MLB acknowledges its attendance figures are a fiction (as to attendance, not as to tickets sold).
   10. Ron J Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4110731)
#1 The AL changed to tickets sold in 1973. You heard a lot of , "See how much the fans are behind the DH. Attendance was up 17%!" (Yes. I'm saying it was intentional -- a ploy to try to sell the DH)

Yeah. They played a full season in 1973 as opposed to losing a few games in 1972. It was still up 12% on a per game basis.

No official reason as to why the NL changed in 1992. Maybe they just got tired of attendance articles that didn't adjust.

There's an awful lot of sense in tracking tickets sold though. A team has limited reasons to care what you do after buying the ticket. Sure, no parking or concession money if you don't show, but they can't be sure of that money in any case.

EDIT: There's a study in Baseball and Billions on the impact of switching from tickets used to tickets sold. Can't find my copy, but as I recall it, that 12% leap in 1973 is about what should have been expected.
   11. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4110740)
The Maury Brown article is linked and goes into it. "Paid attendance" is what the teams care about because that is the money they take in and is(was?) the basis for revenue sharing. It is not deceitful as the teams are open about it.
   12. base ball chick Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4110764)
dear ted berg,

we are all not STUPID thank you very much. we KNOW that "attendence" means numbers of tickets sold.

however, us baseball fans are using our eyeballs to see that a very large percent of people/corporations who bought tickets are not bothering to go to the actual GAME.

you can't judge "interest" in a ballclub by tickets sold, seeing as how they are a tax deduction so saying that "attendence" is up is just a lot of corporate speak which ignores the fact that the audience is not necessarily related to the numbers of tickets sold.
   13. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4110783)
you can't judge "interest" in a ballclub by tickets sold, seeing as how they are a tax deduction so saying that "attendence" is up is just a lot of corporate speak which ignores the fact that the audience is not necessarily related to the numbers of tickets sold.

So everybody else gets to pay for these tickets, which are then not used. God Bless America.
   14. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4110786)
No official reason as to why the NL changed in 1992.


It's in TFA. Basically, this is the MLB standard and is used for revenue sharing purposes, blah blah blah.
   15. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 19, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4110790)
Hasn't the tax deduction on sports and entertainment in general been cut to like 50% or lower?
   16. SteveF Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4110806)
For tickets, yes (50%). Food/beverage is still fully deductible.
   17. BDC Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4110818)
It's actually kind of interesting to think about why there would be massive discrepancies between tickets sold and people there. Aside from obvious and unpredictable factors, mainly weather-related. If a team (to take McCoy's example in #7) sells 25,000 tickets and 12 people actually use them (accounting for hypobole), then why? Are these season tickets written off by companies and firms (if not to taxes, then just to general goodwill expenditures)? Did the team "sell" thousands to tickets to local institutions at such a low price that people didn't see any value in using them? Were some picked up by speculators hoping for resales that never happened? At some point, it would seem that a ticket was either bought for too little or too much to be used. If I deliberately pay $20 for a decent ticket, I'm likely to use it. But if I pay 50¢ because it's my organization's Spirit Night, then I may just blow it off. Similarly if somebody's brother-in-law gives me the $100 seats because whatever: money means nothing to him and the tickets nothing to me.

("I" here is some hypothetical person. Can't remember the last time that I, BDC, failed to use a baseball ticket :)
   18. McCoy Wilfong for Money Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4110826)
I would think it has to do with season tickets and corporations buying those tickets up. Microsoft or SunTrust or whomever isn't buying the tickets to see every game but to have those seats for the games they want to go to. I'm sure with this being their first year in a new park and all that they'll have sold a ton of season tickets. I'm also sure that unless they stay good we'll see their paid attendance decline significantly in the next handful of years.
   19. Metman died today. Or yesterday maybe, Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4110839)
I would think that a large delta between tickets sold and people in seats would be a pretty good indicator that your tickets sold number is likely heading down.

   20. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4110848)

So everybody else gets to pay for these tickets, which are then not used. God Bless America.

The seller (team or owners) pay taxes on the income, so it makes sense that the expense to the buyer would be tax deductible. With the 50% limit, it actually means that half the ticket price is being taxed twice. God Bless America indeed.
   21. Downtown Bookie Posted: April 19, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4110869)
Perhaps for his next article Mr Berg will note that MLB keeps an official total of the number of hits and errors for each team in each and every game; and, therefore, there is no need for anyone to write and record that they saw a play recorded as a hit that should have been an error; or vice-versa; because all that matters in the world is what MLB officially records as what happened, and not what you poor peon think that you witnessed with your own eyes.

DB
   22. JE (Jason Epstein) Posted: April 19, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4110924)
Perhaps for his next article Mr Berg will note that MLB keeps an official total of the number of hits and errors for each team in each and every game;

Will this suffice?
   23. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4111050)
The seller (team or owners) pay taxes on the income, so it makes sense that the expense to the buyer would be tax deductible.

If the tickets are being used for a business purpose. In small businesses, company season tickets can be used as a way to write off what would otherwise be a personal expense. In larger, public businesses, there is a question of proper use of company assets.
   24. Ron J Posted: April 20, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4111070)
#14 That's now. Those reasons didn't apply in 1992. Remember that revenue sharing was initially based strictly on payroll. Come to that, revenue sharing wasn't in place in 1992.
   25. Moloka'i Three-Finger Brown (Declino DeShields) Posted: April 20, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4111170)
Fair enough, Ron J. That's a good point!
   26. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 20, 2012 at 08:24 PM (#4111882)
With the 50% limit, it actually means that half the ticket price is being taxed twice.


Most every dollar gets taxed every time it changes hands. People who can't write off their tickets as a business expense have almost always paid taxes on the money they used to buy those tickets. So 100% of the ticket price is being taxed twice in those cases.
   27. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: April 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4112142)
Not in business to business transactions. In very basic terms, one side takes a credit and the other takes a debit, which offset when the sides calculate profits for tax purposes. Individuals do not have P/L for tax purposes.

So if a company pays for tickets, that is an expense that cannot be fully recognized for tax purposes when most every other expense of the company is recognized.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in
(75 - 10:43am, May 25)
Last: KingKaufman

Newsblog[OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926
(4437 - 10:32am, May 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogManny Machado equals Ty Cobb in win over Jays
(1 - 10:32am, May 25)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013
(1170 - 10:20am, May 25)
Last: Shooty is in the Trust Tree

NewsblogPaul Daugherty: Old-v-New schools of thought
(34 - 9:46am, May 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMarchman: Why Even Have Baseball's Draft?
(15 - 9:19am, May 25)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogPerry: Hawk Harrelson reacts to blown call by Angel Hernandez
(3 - 9:13am, May 25)
Last: McCoy Wilfong for Money

NewsblogDavey Johnson says he won't shave until Nationals start hitting
(3 - 9:06am, May 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogPlaschke: Don Mattingly shows fire, but his flame is flickering with Dodgers
(1 - 9:05am, May 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogFox Sports: McLouth catch earns thrown beverage
(15 - 9:00am, May 25)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogRichie Ashburn’s Widow in Tears Over His Endangered Gladwyne Grave
(30 - 8:30am, May 25)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogSI: Alex Sanabia : I didn't know spitter was against rules
(2 - 7:49am, May 25)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogLATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console
(40 - 7:09am, May 25)
Last: Dan

NewsblogHHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max
(33 - 6:54am, May 25)
Last: RMc and His Roster of Rubbish

NewsblogCurtis Granderson has fractured left pinky finger
(13 - 6:51am, May 25)
Last: Matt Waters

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets.

For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out!

Baseball Autograph Signings
Baseball Card Supplies
Baseball Memorabilia
Baseball Collectibles
Baseball Equipment
Baseball Protective Gear

Page rendered in 0.2100 seconds
51 querie(s) executed