London sports venues

swede · Post by **swede** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 5:31 am

I thought I might just make a list of London´s venues (in a few years) dont know why, but not to start any sporting capital discussions..
ranked after capacities:

Venue sport capacity home of

Epsom Downs Horseracing 130.000 the Derby
Brands Hatch Motorsports 120.000 various
Wembley Football 90.000 England+ cup finals
Twickenham Rugby Union 82.000 England+ cup finals
Ascot Horseracing 80.000 Royal Ascot
Silverstone Formula 1 80.000 British GP
Ashburton Grove Football 60.000 Arsenal FC
White Hart Lane Football 55.000 Tottenham Hotspurs
Upton Park Football 45.000 West Ham United
Stamford Bridge Football 42.000 Chelsea
Selhurst Park Football 42.000 Crystal Palace
The Valley Football 40.000 Charlton Athletic
Craven Cottage Football 40.000 Fulham
Madejski stadium Football/rugby U 37.000 Reading/L.Irish
Vicarage Road Football/rugby U 34.000 watford/saracens
Kempton Horseracing 30.000 king george VI
Sandown Horseracing 30.000 LGR Gold cup
Lords Cricket 28.000 England/M´dsex
New Kenilworth Football 25.000 Luton
New Griffin Football/rugby L 25.000 Brentford/Broncos
Royal Windsor Horseracing 25.000 various
The Oval Cricket 24.000 England/Surrey
Loftus Road Football 20.000 Queens park R
The Den Football 20.000 Millwall
Millenium Dome Indoors 20.000 US sports
London City Horseracing 20.000 various
CP National Athletics 17.000 various
Centre Court Tennis 14.000 Wimbledon
The Stoop Rugby U 12.000 Harlequins
Court No. 1 Tennis 11.000 Wimbledon
London Arena Indoors 11.000 various
Queens club Tennis 10.000 Queens
Adams Park Football/Rugby U 10.000 Wycombe/wasps
Brisbane Road Football 10.000 Leyton Orient

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:31 pm

Nice, although you have big stadiums and nice at that, they are not utilised or patronised as stadiums in Australia in general.

I think per capata Australia could have one of the highest viewings of sport in the world.

swede · Post by **swede** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:38 pm

I must admit I dont understand what you mean. these stadiums are built to host a specific number of matches and every ticket for every match at these venues will be sold. how can a stadium be more usefull than selling out for all intended matches? if you mean groundsharing, thats quite another chestnut and just something thats not done in England, which I think is both admirable and stupid at the same time. after all wembley could probably get over 10 million in total attendance if it was shared by the top London clubs.

but even without multi use groundsharing these venues will be used a lot.
Wembley, Twickenham and all the larger football venues will each cross the 1 million mark per season, which aint bad.

And as for the sport followers per capita, well its very difficult to compare different sports, number of games, geography, cost and availability of tickets and so on. however even considering that, I think its quite easy to find a top 3 if you look at the world, and that top 3 is england, australia and the US. the order of this top 3 would be somewhat more difficult

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:39 pm

I would say per capata Australia and United States would easily pip England. Cricket has no stadium over 30,000. Australia gets 60,70,000 people at the MCG, and have much larger stadiums to host cricket. AFL and Soccer is comparable except for the sheer amount of Premier League matches compared to AFL. Premier League goes for 40 rounds the AFL go for 22. Premier League 20 teams AFL 16. Stadium sizes and crowds range from 20,000 -66,000. With most games around 35 to 40,000 people. In australia most games suceed that figure. The only glubs that dont number only 4 or 5 and that depends on the season there having the weather, and the opposition support basis. United States seem to get huge crowds at every sporting event, but they have a huge population to support there stadiums. So it would be interesting per capita who would come out top. I think America might just beat us. Not just those events but major events including the Australian Open get more people then Wimbledon.

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:46 am

Tough call there. Australia also does very well considering its population but England have heaps of soccer grounds that eschew their figures but you have to acknowledge that and not discount it. Soccer alone in the UK may push it ahead of Aust EVEN ON A PER CAPITA BASIS (especially since it is well supported in lower divisions).

The USA have big College grounds and major stadiums in big cities but I don't know how good the crowds can be. NFL runs for 16 odd rounds and baseball matches during the week don't draw many big crowds. I'd say the US would come third behind UK and OZ.

Egan · Post by **Egan** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 10:36 pm

All sports, we crush England in Rugby Union, League, Cricket, swimming and other sporting events. We have several more tournaments for tennis then England, I would think England would lose out, because even my soccer team which only has a stadium that fits only 27,000 people only sells out once or twice a year with a population the same as Woolongong. Who have three national competitions rather then Boltons one. So the aggregate crowd would be the same as Bolton. There average was about 24,000.

The USA would be ahead, massive crowds to golfing, basketball, I mean they would have to be ahead per capita then Australia.

Tonic · Post by **Tonic** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:06 am

Australia has 19.7 million, the USA 291.5 million. Does anyone still think the USA has a higher per capita?

yob · Post by **yob** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 2:51 pm

swede · Post by **swede** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:27 pm

well the AFL and the premier league may have the same average, but almost every match in the premier league sells out (many clubs coud sell 3-4 times the number of tickets) ( tickets are much more expensive plus you have to consider the lower divisions. I would put England well ahead

as for cricket, well I cant see much difference, australia possibly a bit ahead due to higher capacities at international level but at state/county level, I think englands ahead

as for rugby, well I dont know, I have to admit.

as for the US, it has to be considered that there are so many college teams that attract enourmous attendances, however as they play so few games, it doesnt really mean US should be top.

I would have to say england/US joint top, when considering how few games that actually sell out in australia even with cheap tickets

Tonic · Post by **Tonic** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:56 pm

I know swedes are renowned for their lack of sense of humour, but you're obviously an exception swede.

yob · Post by **yob** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:14 pm

swede · Post by **swede** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:08 pm

well lets compare the crowds.

ENGLAND

Premier league: 13,5 million
division 1: 8,5 million
division 2: 3,9 million
division 3: 2,5 million

cups,ints a.o : 5 million (rough est)

total football attendance: 33,4 million

AUSTRALIA

AFL : 5-6 million

as england is only 2,5 times bigger than Australia, its quite clear that the crowds are far far higher in england, even per capita. even if the afl doubled their crowds it wouldnt be enough.
on top of that the english figures are kept down by endless sell outs caused by their unwillingness to share large grounds and difficulty in financing large expansions of their own

If London did " a melbourne" and shared a huge stadium, crowds would reach NFL levels

cam · Post by **cam** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:00 pm

In 2002/03, there were a total of 380 English Premier League games. In the AFL, there are 352 (plus finals). EPL has 20 Clubs, AFL 16. Average crowds for the most recent season in the EPL was 35,464 (one of the highest averages ever), so far this year in the AFL, the average is 33,143.

Also for anyone who's interested, here are the average crowds for english soccer for the recent season..
Division 1 - 15,000
Division 2 - 7,000
Division 3 - 4,500

marcus · Post by **marcus** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:07 pm

yob · Post by **yob** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:41 pm