Sports Market Size Question

[rkhum]

I'm confused reading this article
link
I always figured the metropolitan population (MSA) for a region was pretty much the same as market size; of course meaning that while HH won't match what the population is, we should need see too many changes in position or gaps between markets.
Then I look at this and see:

1. LA has less than million fewer than NY
2. Chicago is only 500,000 above Philly yet Boston is 600,000 less than Philly.
3. Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa larger than Detroit
4. Miami below Orlando
5. Sacramento above Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...huh?

Can somebody explain?

Click to read more...

 

[PCSPounder]

Edit: yes, you’re looking at DMAs. Nielsen and the media folks have traditionally measured by number of households instead of raw numbers of people (and the reach of the television stations) because of a belief that the number of TVs present would reflect households instead of total number of adults + kids.

In a larger market (more so in NYC and Boston), the expense of living there often means having a non-family roommate, so that’s a possible constraint. The larger number of kids in Mormon families causes a disadvantage for Salt Lake City and, to a lesser degree, Boise.

With the ability to watch on individual devices, are the measurements changing? I can’t answer that.

 

[GindyDraws]

And, really, if you're looking at those metrics, it gets confusing as Portland is 22nd, but only has the Trailblazers, while Pittsburgh is 26th but has three major sports teams... just behind Indianapolis with 2, and ahead of Milwaukee with 3 as well (38th because the Packers are considered part of their TV market).

 

[rkhum]

I think looking at MSA population is a better measure IMO

 

[IU Hawks fan]

And, really, if you're looking at those metrics, it gets confusing as Portland is 22nd, but only has the Trailblazers, while Pittsburgh is 26th but has three major sports teams... just behind Indianapolis with 2, and ahead of Milwaukee with 3 as well (38th because the Packers are considered part of their TV market).

Portland is underserved no matter which of the 3 regional definitions you look at:
CSA: 20
DMA: 22
MSA: 25

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I think looking at MSA population is a better measure IMO

DMAs are a bit antiquated because most people don't get their TV through rabbit ears anymore. So, there's no reason to separate Miami from West Palm Beach just because West Palm Beach has over-the-air TV stations.

MSA separates SF/Oakland from San Jose, while these have always been combined into 1 TV market and certainly is 1 sports market. It also chops the LA market into 3 different MSAs (with the Riverside & Oxnard regions each having their own)

CSA might be the most accurate in terms of sports markets. It does combine Washington & Baltimore, which is somewhat more reflective of where they stand as a collective sports market, with Monumental & MASN available across the whole region, however there are some weeks where Ravens games aren't available in the Washington DMA, and vice versa with the Commanders in Baltimore.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm confused reading this article
link
I always figured the metropolitan population (MSA) for a region was pretty much the same as market size; of course meaning that while HH won't match what the population is, we should need see too many changes in position or gaps between markets.
Then I look at this and see:

1. LA has less than million fewer than NY
2. Chicago is only 500,000 above Philly yet Boston is 600,000 less than Philly.
3. Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa larger than Detroit
4. Miami below Orlando
5. Sacramento above Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Baltimore...huh?

Can somebody explain?

Lots of time MSA will break up a sports market, the article does a poor job of pointing that out IMO.

Take Boston for example. 4.9m is the MSA population

But the sports market also includes:

Providence MSA - 1.6m
Hartford MSA - 1.1m

Then you have the NY sports market which really includes the Bridgeport MSA (950k)

 

[KevFu]

I think you need to look more at CSAs...PLUS adding your own common sense.

Every inch of our countries is divided up by the sports leagues to the teams they have.

Boston and Phoenix are the best examples. Boston teams act like big rich clubs. Phoenix's teams act like "small market" clubs.

And it's because as BBB points out, the Boston sports fan territory is lot more than the Boston DMA, MSA, even CSA.... Stephen King is up in Maine, kicking back with a cold beer in the summer watching the Sox on NESN.

Phoenix gets the whole state of Arizona, probably most of New Mexico, too. But that's just far fewer people in the vast empty space of AZ/NM compared to MA, VT, NH, ME, RI and half of CT.

So financially, Boston acts like a market of 15 million people, and Phoenix acts like one of 8 million.

 

[rkhum]

Lots of time MSA will break up a sports market, the article does a poor job of pointing that out IMO.

Take Boston for example. 4.9m is the MSA population

But the sports market also includes:

Providence MSA - 1.6m
Hartford MSA - 1.1m

Then you have the NY sports market which really includes the Bridgeport MSA (950k)

Hartford is NOT part of the Boston market, not at all. It's just as much NY.

 

[KevFu]

CSA might be the most accurate in terms of sports markets. It does combine Washington & Baltimore, which is somewhat more reflective of where they stand as a collective sports market, with Monumental & MASN available across the whole region, however there are some weeks where Ravens games aren't available in the Washington DMA, and vice versa with the Commanders in Baltimore.

Baltimore is always a weird one, where I'd use MSA's for each instead of considering it a 2-team market in MLB/NFL.

I think a lot of it is LEAGUE affiliation. Like, the Orioles and Senators were both in the American League from the 1954s to 1971 -- (A) which implies they are separate markets; and (B) established a competitive nature between the two. The Orioles we just a lot better and DC has a high transplant population due to the industry of politics, which changes every 2-4 years with elections, so the Senators failed and moved TWICE. In the NATIONAL LEAGUE, the Washington Nationals won their division more times in 19 seasons than the Senators did in 71 years; and had the same number of World Series championships: one.

In football, Baltimore and Washington were in the same "Conference" from 1953-1969. Again that treats them as separate markets; When the AFL-NFL merger was complete for 1970, the Colts switched to the AFC (with CLE and PIT), and the Ravens came into the league in the AFC opposite Washington.

Whereas, in the Bay Area, the Giants and A's and Niners and Raiders have always been in separate leagues/conferences.


And of course, it's important to note that some markets just aren't listed on the CSAs, because they don't have a big enough nearby municipality to "combine" with.

 

[oknazevad]

Edit: yes, you’re looking at DMAs. Nielsen and the media folks have traditionally measured by number of households instead of raw numbers of people (and the reach of the television stations) because of a belief that the number of TVs present would reflect households instead of total number of adults + kids.

In a larger market (more so in NYC and Boston), the expense of living there often means having a non-family roommate, so that’s a possible constraint. The larger number of kids in Mormon families causes a disadvantage for Salt Lake City and, to a lesser degree, Boise.

With the ability to watch on individual devices, are the measurements changing? I can’t answer that.

Nielsen's figures are always going to be wrong, to some extent, because they have to maintain a certain amount of continuity with the days when there was one TV in a house, and it was a big expensive purchase. Now a house like mine is common. We have three people and five TVs. It's not like the dog watches TV. They're just a piece of furniture. Like a chair. And then we add in the computers, tablet, and phones, the idea of one TV per house that everyone watches together is useless.

And that's not even mentioning DVRs.

 

[KevFu]

Nielsen's figures are always going to be wrong, to some extent, because they have to maintain a certain amount of continuity with the days when there was one TV in a house, and it was a big expensive purchase. Now a house like mine is common. We have three people and five TVs. It's not like the dog watches TV. They're just a piece of furniture. Like a chair. And then we add in the computers, tablet, and phones, the idea of one TV per house that everyone watches together is useless.

And that's not even mentioning DVRs.

Nielsen's were also invented before the concept of sports bars.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Portland is underserved no matter which of the 3 regional definitions you look at:
CSA: 20
DMA: 22
MSA: 25

They're realllly into MLS though. One could make the argument They're the best fan base in MLS (which will draw the ire of certainly Seattle and maybe Vancouver. The Cascadia Cup is a thing there.) And if MLS is/does become the 5th major, They're no longer as underserved.

 

[KevFu]

They're realllly into MLS though. One could make the argument They're the best fan base in MLS (which will draw the ire of certainly Seattle and maybe Vancouver. The Cascadia Cup is a thing there.) And if MLS is/does become the 5th major, They're no longer as underserved.

Part of the calculus has to be "Are they into soccer THAT MUCH, or is part of their Timbers support 'this is what we got'?"

The main reason we look at market sizes for pro sports expansion talk is because the more people you have, the less burden required to "support the team."

So many investors are are lining up to buy MLS franchises because MLS is a major league operation with minor league expenses. The salary cap is $5.2 million. Total. (Yeah, there's an exempt slot beyond that, but still... the 8th guy in the Trail Blazers makes $6.3 million!

MLS alone can't "tap out" a market. Portland definitely could handle one or two more teams. They could do NFL and NHL, or MLB and NHL, but probably not MLB and NFL, and not all three.

 

[PCSPounder]

Part of the calculus has to be "Are they into soccer THAT MUCH, or is part of their Timbers support 'this is what we got'?"

The main reason we look at market sizes for pro sports expansion talk is because the more people you have, the less burden required to "support the team."

So many investors are are lining up to buy MLS franchises because MLS is a major league operation with minor league expenses. The salary cap is $5.2 million. Total. (Yeah, there's an exempt slot beyond that, but still... the 8th guy in the Trail Blazers makes $6.3 million!

MLS alone can't "tap out" a market. Portland definitely could handle one or two more teams. They could do NFL and NHL, or MLB and NHL, but probably not MLB and NFL, and not all three.

It’s Soccer City USA. Full stop.

There’s a problem right now… ownership. Only reason the sellout streak didn’t resume post-pandemic.

Thing is, Portland is anything but tapped out. All the issues meant a one-year downturn in property values, but those are already rebounding. If anything, it’s getting richer around here, and that presents its own problems.

HOWEVER, Portland doesn’t sell its soul for sports venues. We’re not big on handouts. That will always temper the possibilities here.

 

[KevFu]

HOWEVER, Portland doesn’t sell its soul for sports venues. We’re not big on handouts. That will always temper the possibilities here.

Yeah, I think that not selling your soul for a stadium that's essentially "single-use" in those sports makes sense; but also limits the Big Five possibilities to two sports playing in the same kind of venue in the same season (NBA/NHL) and thus needs the same owner controlling both, and MLS in the summer.

 

[tank44]

Yeah, I think that not selling your soul for a stadium that's essentially "single-use" in those sports makes sense; but also limits the Big Five possibilities to two sports playing in the same kind of venue in the same season (NBA/NHL) and thus needs the same owner controlling both, and MLS in the summer.

Portland did the opposite - had a multiuse facility for football, soccer & baseball and now it's just soccer.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yeah, I think that not selling your soul for a stadium that's essentially "single-use" in those sports makes sense; but also limits the Big Five possibilities to two sports playing in the same kind of venue in the same season (NBA/NHL) and thus needs the same owner controlling both, and MLS in the summer.

Now you have me curious, is there another situation other than Boston where the NBA/NHL teams share an arena and have different owners?

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Now you have me curious, is there another situation other than Boston where the NBA/NHL teams share an arena and have different owners?

Several:

• Chicago: Hawks & Bulls both own/operate arena through 'United Center Joint Venture'
• Dallas: Stars & Mavs operate arena through Center Operating Company, L.P. joint venture
• Philly: Flyers (Comcast Spectator) own/operate arena
• Detroit: Red Wings (Olympia) own, but operated under 313 Presents joint venture between Olympia & Palace (Pistons)
• LA: Kings (AEG) own

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Several:

• Chicago: Hawks & Bulls both own/operate arena through 'United Center Joint Venture'
• Dallas: Stars & Mavs operate arena through Center Operating Company, L.P. joint venture
• Philly: Flyers (Comcast Spectator) own/operate arena
• Detroit: Red Wings (Olympia) own, but operated under 313 Presents joint venture between Olympia & Palace (Pistons)
• LA: Kings (AEG) own

Interesting. Seems like Philly is the only one that is an owner/rental situation like Boston (Jacobs owns it and the Celtics pay rent)

 

[ponder719]

Interesting. Seems like Philly is the only one that is an owner/rental situation like Boston (Jacobs owns it and the Celtics pay rent)

And the Sixers are, to put it mildly, *not happy* about that. They are desperate to build their own arena, so they can control the revenue streams.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

They're realllly into MLS though. One could make the argument They're the best fan base in MLS (which will draw the ire of certainly Seattle and maybe Vancouver. The Cascadia Cup is a thing there.) And if MLS is/does become the 5th major, They're no longer as underserved.

Sorry to veer from the topic...I'm no soccer fan, but I believe Atlanta owns a few American soccer attendance records. MLS is huge, here.

 

[KevFu]

The joint venture teams usually don't have a problem when the arena WAS old and very far behind new buildings.

Like the Dallas situation was easy to get the Mavericks and Stars to agree, because Reunion Arena was the last arena built without luxury suites. So while the Mavs were "giving up" revenue from the arena by going 50/50 with the Stars, they were gaining vast new revenue streams they didn't have before.


No team owner is gonna want to be a tenant of another team. That leads to chaos. Which is why the NHL isn't in Houston or Portland now.

 

[KevFu]

Portland did the opposite - had a multiuse facility for football, soccer & baseball and now it's just soccer.

Yeah, but the multi-use was the old stadium that obviously wouldn't be acceptable for a pro team, right?

What I meant was that a city's investment in a big league sports team... Both NFL and MLB stadiums are huge footprints, making them indoors doubles the price, and scope of the project and there's just not a lot of events for which you'd use those facilities.

Whereas an NBA/NHL arena can be used by two major pro sports teams... and a whole lot more.

There's just tons of events that can go into an arena that size the other 200 days of the year; and the footprint is a quarter of the size so it can fit into a better location for city planning and is a whole lot cheaper.

An NBA/NHL building is easily the best blend of "cost efficiency/versatile usage" for a city to commit to.

 

[tank44]

Yeah, but the multi-use was the old stadium that obviously wouldn't be acceptable for a pro team, right?

Is an old stadium that has been repurposed a few times and technically over 100 years old. Was previously used by MiLB AAA Portland Beavers and USL Portland Timbers and NCAA Portland State Vikings. Now just used for MLS Timbers and NWSL Thorns as it became soccer specific and kicked the other teams to new venues or out of town

Per wiki: "In 2011, the stadium was renovated to provide Portland with a premier location to watch the Timbers play in Major League Soccer as well as fit the standards required by the league. The $36 million renovation modernized the stadium, added a high-tech video board and added new seating and amenities. "