2025 Attendances

[The_Wookie]

11.12.2024

Gather Round tickets snapped up in record time


The AFL is pleased to announce that more than 195,000 Gather Round…Festival of Footy tickets have sold… with five of the nine games sold out, 20,000 more than this time last year.

Member on sale on Tuesday saw a significant uplift in demand for tickets this year, selling more than 100,000 tickets in the first four hours, in comparison to the same amount in 24 hours last year.

This year there are an extra 47,000 tickets on offer for fans with the two Saturday matches being ticketed separately.

Tickets still remain for Collingwood vs Sydney Swans on Friday night, Carlton vs West Coast on Saturday afternoon, Melbourne vs Essendon on Saturday night and a very limited number of restricted view tickets and tickets for the Pepsi Collective for Port Adelaide vs Hawthorn on Sunday evening.

AFL CEO Andrew Dillon said it was clear Gather Round momentum was not slowly down.

“The demand for tickets this year was significantly higher than the first two Gather Rounds, with more than 195,000 tickets being purchased in the first two days,” said Mr Dillon.

“A ticket to the matches at the Barossa Park was always going to be one of the hottest tickets in town and the fans have certainly illustrated that by selling out both matches so quickly.”

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said: “Gather Round continues to exceed all expectations.

“We are honoured that so many footy fans from around the country are making the commitment to travel to our beautiful state to experience this event like no other.

“They’ll be truly welcome.

“If you haven’t got a ticket already – get in quick!”

Tickets for the remaining matches can be found here.

 

[Rouel_14]

The wildcard thing is absolute rubbish.

The post season bye has breathed life into the Semi Final weekend, which for about 15 years was an awful round of football. See some of the terrible crowds that used to go to those games:

2000 NM v Hawthorn - 50,027
2000 Carlton v Brisbane - 56,027
2001 Port Adelaide v Hawthorn - 30,613
2002 Port Adelaide v Essendon - 27,661
2003 Port Adelaide v Essendon - 36,557
2004 St Kilda v Sydney - 50,671
2004 Geelong v Essendon - 53,667

By about 2008 those Semi Finals starting drawing some embarrassing finals crowds…

2008 W Bulldogs v Sydney - 42,977
2009 W Bulldogs v Brisbane - 47,030
2009 Collingwood v Adelaide - 62,824
2010 Geelong v Fremantle - 45,056
2010 W Bulldogs v Sydney - 39,526
2011 Hawthorn v Sydney - 55,198
2013 Geelong v Port Adelaide - 52,927

Those were cut throat finals drawing home and away standard crowds — and because of the way ticketing works in the finals any crowd under about 70,000 looks embarrassing in the finals. What this will do is make winning the flag from outside the top 6 impossible, meaning at least one or perhaps two rounds of dead rubbers.

The ideal situation is a top 8 in a 20 round season which is basically an expansion of the final 5 the VFL had from 1972 to 1986 (the golden era of finals)

I mean you could say the wild card thing is absolutely rubbish and it will dampen semi final weekend - but how about the last 6 weeks of the season when the top 9 were sewed up and it was like whipping a dead horse for a month.

Wildcard weekend has merit and will get up - becuase it has merit - weather it’s popular or not.

 

[Hawkk]

I mean you could say the wild card thing is absolutely rubbish and it will dampen semi final weekend - but how about the last 6 weeks of the season when the top 9 were sewed up and it was like whipping a dead horse for a month.

Wildcard weekend has merit and will get up - becuase it has merit - weather it’s popular or not.

It won’t matter because if supporters don’t think they’ll win a flag (or at least build to one), they won’t rock up. Before they introduced the post season bye the Elimination Final crowds were soft for that reason…

Some examples

2001 Hawthorn v Sydney 32,910 (Docklands)
2002 Essendon v West Coast 37,765 (Docklands)
2005 Kangaroos v Port Adelaide 25,195 (Docklands)
2007 Hawthorn v Adelaide 36,543 (Docklands)
2008 Adelaide v Collingwood 37,865 (AAMI Stadium)
2008 Sydney v North Melbourne 19,128 (Homebush)
2011 St Kilda v Sydney 37,280 (Docklands)
2012 Geelong v Fremantle 44,460 (MCG)
2013 Collingwood v Port Adelaide 51,770 (MCG)

All of those were very poor crowds because the common perception was that 5-8 were making up the numbers.

Carlton and Port fans were not energised to make the top 10 this year because they knew they had chance at a flag. The AFL are on a good thing with the current set up, trust the AFL to now ruin it ‘just cause.

 

[The Educator]

It won’t matter because if supporters don’t think they’ll win a flag (or at least build to one), they won’t rock up. Before they introduced the post season bye the Elimination Final crowds were soft for that reason…

Carlton and Port Adelaide fans were not energised to make the top 10 this year because they knew they had chance at a flag. The AFL are on a good thing with the current set up, trust the AFL to now ruin it ‘just cause.

It's a long bow to think a wild card weekend will dampen the semi final weekend.

The reason elimination finals and semi finals have elevated is because finals have elevated more generally. The pre finals bye increasing competitiveness of bottom 8 teams would be very marginal. Even if it has, how would 7th to 10 playing a wildcard weekend detract from what by seeding would include 3rd to 6th (i.e semi final weekend)?

 

[Hawkk]

It's a long bow to think a wild card weekend will dampen the semi final weekend.

As per my edited post (sorry changed it since you responded) it also impacts first week crowds too.

The reason elimination finals and semi finals have elevated is because finals have elevated more generally.

Because every match is live.

The pre finals bye increasing competitiveness of bottom 8 teams would be very marginal. Even if it has, how would 7th to 10 playing a wildcard weekend detract from what by seeding would include 3rd to 6th (i.e semi final weekend)?

That’s not supported by the numbers.

Between 2000 and 2015, just two out of thirty EF winners defeated the QF loser (6.66 per cent chance). Since the change its 47% (11 times). It has made an enormous impact. It’s also impacted the win/loss record of the Preliminary Final weekend too.

Finals attendances exploded around the time they introduced the bye - look at the attendances in 2010 compared to 2016/17. It would seem inconceivable that a St Kilda v Western Bulldogs Preliminary Final would draw 62,500 in 2025 like it did in 2010.

 

[Walshawk]

As per my edited post (sorry changed it since you responded) it also impacts first week crowds too.

Because every match is live.


That’s not supported by the numbers.

Between 2000 and 2015, just two out of thirty EF winners defeated the QF loser (6.66 per cent chance). Since the change its 47% (11 times). It has made an enormous impact. It’s also impacted the win/loss record of the Preliminary Final weekend too.

Finals attendances exploded around the time they introduced the bye - look at the attendances in 2010 compared to 2016/17. It would seem inconceivable that a St Kilda v Western Bulldogs Preliminary Final would draw 62,500 in 2025 like it did in 2010.

Both semi finalists have the same amount of rest in between games. If anything, the QF loser has a little more rest. So how does this favour the 5 - 8 teams? What is the actual reason for this change?

 

[Hawkk]

Both semi finalists have the same amount of rest in between games. If anything, the QF loser has a little more rest. So how does this favour the 5 - 8 teams? What is the actual reason for this change?

I agree. But the crowds are up (massively) and the results have mixed up far more since the changes happened. If anything the changes should impact the PF more than the SF but that hasn’t occurred as much.

 

[Sammoll]

36,628 for the QClash final tonight. Great crowd.

Biggest crowd at the Gabba since 2019 QF. Looked like lots of Suns fans made the trip up the highway too - plenty of bays of red/yellow/pink which was great to see. Unfortunate performance on the field from them tonight but still a very successful year overall and keen to see how that impacts their crowds next year

 

[The Educator]

As per my edited post (sorry changed it since you responded) it also impacts first week crowds too.

Because every match is live.


That’s not supported by the numbers.

Your argument is not supported by logic.

Between 2000 and 2015, just two out of thirty EF winners defeated the QF loser (6.66 per cent chance). Since the change its 47% (11 times). It has made an enormous impact. It’s also impacted the win/loss record of the Preliminary Final weekend too.

Finals attendances exploded around the time they introduced the bye - look at the attendances in 2010 compared to 2016/17. It would seem inconceivable that a St Kilda v Western Bulldogs Preliminary Final would draw 62,500 in 2025 like it did in 2010.

I was well aware of the poor outcomes of elimination finals winners before the pre-finals bye was introduced.

For a start, your numbers are wrong. There were at least 4 EF winners that went on to win a semi. 3 were in the last two years. There were also a stack of close semi finals that just happened to fall to the QF losers from 2000 to 2013

You are confusing a correlation and causation. Actually, given the dynamism of elimination finals winners winning semis started in 2014, you arent even doing that

Here are some far more coherent explanations as to why the bottom half of the 8th started becoming more competitive around 2014 onwards:

-the introduction of the soft football cap reduced competitive spread across the top teams
-the deepening quality of the top end of the competition has increased the quality of bottom half of the 8 teams
-the increasing professionalism of the game makes it less likely that the losing QF winner will have a greater hunger to win than the winning EF
-the 1-in-13 years outcome was mostly statistically anomolous

There is far more of an argument that the pre finals bye has reduced the advantage of the QF winner.

In summary, there is:

1. no logic that points to the pre finals bye as helping an elimination finalist beat a QF loser in a semi
2. not even a correlation supporting the fact it does (given 3 of the preceding 4 EF winners went on to win their semis)

That leaves your "finals crowds exploded" and St Kilda Bulldogs reference just classic just-so fallacy. My very point was "The reason elimination finals and semi finals have elevated is because finals have elevated more generally."

The actual risk of the wild card round to that end is to reduce the scarcity factor.

 

[The Educator]

I agree. But the crowds are up (massively) and the results have mixed up far more since the changes happened. If anything the changes should impact the PF more than the SF but that hasn’t occurred as much.

Haha, the outcome that actually has a logically basis hasn't occurred as much.......a critical thinker would reconsider their assumptions

 

[Walshawk]

Crowds have also increased as there is an extra week to get organised, and buy tickets.

 

[Hawkk]

Haha, the outcome that actually has a logically basis hasn't occurred as much.......a critical thinker would reconsider their assumptions

Edit: it actually has.

Since the bye, the PF host has won 10 of 18 PF’s (55%). Before the bye, it was 26 out of 30 (86%). The number of teams that have come from outside the top 4 to make a GF has risen from 0 (in 15 years) to 4 (in 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024). That is a huge difference and a massive shake up.

These are the years where visiting PF team has rolled the host off the longer break — 2016 (x2), 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024. And before the change it happened in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2015 only.

I’m actually surprised that hasn’t made as much press as the straight sets. Quite clearly the changes have been hugely beneficial in shaking up a stale finals series.

 

[Walshawk]

Edit: it actually has.

Since the bye, the PF host has won 10 of 18 PF’s (55%). Before the bye, it was 26 out of 30 (86%). The number of teams that have come from outside the top 4 to make a GF has risen from 0 (in 15 years) to 4 (in 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024). That is a huge difference and a massive shake up.

These are the years where visiting PF team has rolled the host off the longer break — 2016 (x2), 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024. And before the change it happened in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2015 only.

I’m actually surprised that hasn’t made as much press as the straight sets. Quite clearly the changes have been hugely beneficial in shaking up a stale finals series.

I would suggest that is it simply more likely that there are more good teams. This year is the perfect example of a very even top 8.

Correlation is not causation. Just because it rains every time I forget my umbrella does not mean that me forgetting my umbrella is making it rain.

 

[The Educator]

Edit: it actually has.

Since the bye, the PF host has won 10 of 18 PF’s (55%). Before the bye, it was 26 out of 30 (86%). The number of teams that have come from outside the top 4 to make a GF has risen from 0 (in 15 years) to 4 (in 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024). That is a huge difference and a massive shake up.

These are the years where visiting PF team has rolled the host off the longer break — 2016 (x2), 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024. And before the change it happened in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2015 only.

I’m actually surprised that hasn’t made as much press as the straight sets. Quite clearly the changes have been hugely beneficial in shaking up a stale finals series.

Oh my god. Are you argueing against yourself? What are you doing man?

There is a strong case the changes have increased the number of PF winners who didn't get the week off.

Unlike the E finals winners winning Semi finals, the prelim final shift:

• has a logical case as to why it might have happened and
• the "correlation" actually occured inline with the changes (i.e. it didnt kick off 2 years before the change)

I would suggest that is it simply more likely that there are more good teams. This year is the perfect example of a very even top 8.

Correlation is not causation. Just because it rains every time I forget my umbrella does not mean that me forgetting my umbrella is making it rain.

Exactly right.

I am pretty ambivalent to the wild card round but if you take the far more likely position that the more competitive semi finals is a result of more even (/better) teams, this actually supports the addition of wild card games.

The better argument would be one that is agnostic as to why there has been an increase in attendance at finals but to not want to risk it by reducing the scarcity with the addition of two knew pseudo-finals

 

[Cmarsh]

So I guess the interest from a crowd perspective is how far the two prelims get into the 90's, especially with the chance of rain for both games.

 

[Hawkk]

I would suggest that is it simply more likely that there are more good teams. This year is the perfect example of a very even top 8.

Correlation is not causation. Just because it rains every time I forget my umbrella does not mean that me forgetting my umbrella is making it rain.

It is very stark though. My point is, I have no doubt the bye (and current finals series) has boosted attendances because it’s made weeks 2 and 3 far more competitive. Prior to the change, the 5 v 8 and 6 v 7 were not contenders and the loser of 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 would inevitably limp to the PF where they’d get rolled. It made the first week qualifying finals decisive for the finals…

Oh my god. Are you argueing against yourself? What are you doing man?

There is a strong case the changes have increased the number of PF winners who didn't get the week off.

Unlike the E finals winners winning Semi finals, the prelim final shift:

• has a logical case as to why it might have happened and
• the "correlation" actually occured inline with the changes (i.e. it didnt kick off 2 years before the change)

Not arguing against myself at all. The bye coincided with far more competitive 2nd and 3rd week finals matches (with the crowds ballooning for EF and SF crowds as a result).

The wildcard round will lead to a distinct divide between the top 6 and 7 to 10 — if your finishing 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th (the point of the wildcard is to keep those teams involved) you don’t really think you’re a chance at a flag anyway. It will not lead to significantly larger attendances or TV ratings to those matches, but that’s just my opinion.

The better argument would be one that is agnostic as to why there has been an increase in attendance at finals but to not want to risk it by reducing the scarcity with the addition of two knew pseudo-finals

I’ve watched my team play 4 Elimination Finals before the change and 2 after it. As a supporter I’ve felt far more engaged and optimistic that my team could make the third week since they made the change than I did before — it would be interesting to see how other fans have thought about that. Because, as I said, Elimination Final and Semi Final attendances went up substantially post 2016.

We’ve seen 4 teams make a Grand Final from outside the top 4, something that just did not happen from 2000 to 2015.

 

[Hawkk]

So I guess the interest from a crowd perspective is how far the two prelims get into the 90's, especially with the chance of rain for both games.

95,000 to both is possible even with bad weather IMO.

The last time Collingwood played an MCG final they drew 97,665 (vs the Giants in the 2023 Prelim). The last time Hawthorn played a final at the MCG they drew 97,828 against the Dogs whilst the Cats drew 93,066 against the Lions in last year’s PF.

The only watch is if two MCG finals impacts neural attendance as the other games were the only games in town. Do they still do the series game thing?

 

[The Educator]

It is very stark though. My point is, I have no doubt the bye (and current finals series) has boosted attendances because it’s made weeks 2 and 3 far more competitive. Prior to the change, the 5 v 8 and 6 v 7 were not contenders and the loser of 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 would inevitably limp to the PF where they’d get rolled. It made the first week qualifying finals decisive for the finals…


Not arguing against myself at all. The bye coincided with far more competitive 2nd and 3rd week finals matches (with the crowds ballooning for EF and SF crowds as a result).

The bye did not "coincide" with far more competitive 2nd week finals - the shift (to the extent the first 14 years werent just a statistical anomoly) started two years earlier.

You are wrong, regardless of how obtusely you entrench yourself. You are making an assertion (crowds have ballooned beacause of X) where you premise is clearly incorrect (X has not actually occurred for the reasons you are suggesting and timelines confirm this).

The wildcard round will lead to a distinct divide between the top 6 and 7 to 10

This is very plausible. You don't need your flawed analysis above to make this assertion. You are better off leaning into this than trying to argue something that has been demonstrated to be illogical.

— if your finishing 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th (the point of the wildcard is to keep those teams involved) you don’t really think you’re a chance at a flag anyway.

It will not lead to significantly larger attendances or TV ratings to those matches, but that’s just my opinion.

Regardless of magnitude, it will add two games that will rate significantly higher than prime time home and away games and two fully ticketed marquee games.

I’ve watched my team play 4 Elimination Finals before the change and 2 after it. As a supporter I’ve felt far more engaged and optimistic that my team could make the third week since they made the change than I did before — it would be interesting to see how other fans have thought about that. Because, as I said, Elimination Final and Semi Final attendances went up substantially post 2016.

You are a desperate man. Where is your anonymous avataar so threatened by admitting you are wrong?

In 2015 Hawthorn played a semi final against adelaide in front of 71 thousand.

2 years before, they played a qualifying final against Sydney in 2013 in front of 60 thousand.

 

[Hawkk]

The bye did not "coincide" with far more competitive 2nd week finals - the shift (to the extent the first 14 years werent just a statistical anomoly) started two years earlier.

You are wrong, regardless of how obtusely you entrench yourself. You are making an assertion (crowds have ballooned beacause of X) where you premise is clearly incorrect (X has not actually occurred for the reasons you are suggesting and timelines confirm this).




This is very plausible. You don't need your flawed analysis above to make this assertion. You are better off leaning into this than trying to argue something that has been demonstrated to be illogical.





Regardless of magnitude, it will add two games that will rate significantly higher than prime time home and away games and two fully ticketed marquee games.




You are a desperate man. Where is your anonymous avataar so threatened by admitting you are wrong?

In 2015 Hawthorn played a semi final against adelaide in front of 71 thousand.

2 years before, they played a qualifying final against Sydney in 2013 in front of 60 thousand.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. My point still stands about the current finals systems being far better than the wildcard…

 

[The Educator]

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. My point still stands about the current finals systems being far better than the wildcard…

Like I said, I am ambivalent towards a wild card round. I think the risk is to its impact on the elimination finals. It essentially doubles their number (reduction in scarcity) and, as you pointed out, puts the 7th and 8th teams at significant disadvantage comared to the status quo (potential reduction in competitiveness).

It also marginally reduces the intensity / jeopardy that currently exists around the final 8 cutoff and the flow on that has through the season ....i.e. this year 14 wins and 137pct misses the finals.....this puts a premium on winning in each game that is marginally lowered by keeping 10th alive

On the positive side of the ledger is another weekend of marque sudden death games (albeit between teams that will find it next to impossible to win the premiership), and a handful of teams' season being alive for weeks longer.

It is far from clear to me that the advantages exceed the disadvantages / risks

 

[Bjo187]

I’m a big supporter of the bye week and the introduction of the wildcard round for several reasons. Making the top six is now a tougher task, and those teams deserve the reward of a week’s break. It also stops the AFL’s competitors from getting a free weekend with no footy on, while keeping more clubs and supporter bases invested in the season for longer — unlike this year.

Since the bye was introduced, the finals series has definitely lifted in quality and become much more entertaining for neutrals. If my own team ever cracked the top four, I might feel differently, but from the outside it’s been a clear improvement.

On another note, I’d make a rule that clubs finishing in the top six can’t access free agency that year. The constant topping-up of sides like Geelong, Collingwood, Brisbane and usually Sydney has created a two-speed economy in the competition. We need to encourage more genuine movement up and down the ladder, and this change would help drive that. Limiting it to the top four isn’t enough — those powerhouse clubs are still reaching semi-finals even in their so-called “down years.”

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[kranger]

For only the second time since 2003 the WAFL Grand Final will not feature Subiaco, Claremont or Peel, who besides from the Eagles Reserves are the three lowest drawing clubs.

Of the last 22 GF’s the number of appearances are:
Subiaco 13
Claremont 8
Peel 4 (all in the last nine years alone)

This years WAFL GF will feature South Fremantle and East Perth. So hopefully we will get a bit of a bumper crowd.

Unfortunately across the League, Reserves and Colts Grand Finals, only three clubs (South Fremantle, East Perth and Claremont) each feature in two of them, so less likely to get attendance from the other clubs.

 

[Hawkk]

For only the second time since 2003 the WAFL Grand Final will not feature Subiaco, Claremont or Peel, who besides from the Eagles Reserves are the three lowest drawing clubs.

Of the last 22 GF’s the number of appearances are:
Subiaco 13
Claremont 8
Peel 4 (all in the last nine years alone)

This years WAFL GF will feature South Fremantle and East Perth. So hopefully we will get a bit of a bumper crowd.

Unfortunately across the League, Reserves and Colts Grand Finals, only three clubs (South Fremantle, East Perth and Claremont) each feature in two of them, so less likely to get attendance from the other clubs.

Who are the most popular WAFL clubs? South and East Fremantle, West and East Perth?

 

[Hawkk]

Posted this on the Hawks board but this is the HFC allocation for Friday (as of 11am)



I gather the other bays are the Geelong ones and most of the premium seating (for both) has already sold out. Still plenty available (despite 50,000 being in the line up at 9.45 this morning).

 

[ep12]

Posted this on the Hawks board but this is the HFC allocation for Friday (as of 11am)

View attachment 2426442

I gather the other bays are the Geelong ones and most of the premium seating (for both) has already sold out. Still plenty available (despite 50,000 being in the line up at 9.45 this morning).

Based on a perusal of the cats and hawks ticketing threads it seems that very few people are being allowed in to purchase at a time.

Hawthorn allocation much better and bigger than Geelong's as expected.