Definitive most popular team

[Reggi]

This data comes from Roy Morgan research and is the definitive most popular clubs

Nationally
Sydney 11% (isn't it obvious!)
Brisbane 6%
West Coast Eagles 5%
Adelaide Crows 5%
Essendon 5%
Collingwood 5%

Victoria

Collingwood 12%
Essendon 11%
Carlton 10%
Richmond 7%
Geelong 6%
Hawthorn 6%

 

[Arch]

sydney , the most popular national team ???
thats total crap- how did they "research" that little gem ???
the real measure of the most popular team- is who pulls the biggest crowds in the season, not only at home but on the road.
maybe "research" who that is, and you'll have THE most popular team in the country.
i think we all know who that is too..........

 

[Pessimistic]

If this research is representative (the victorian bit looks credible) It seems like Hawthorn is twice as effective as Collingwood at converting supporters to members, and even more so than the rest

Hawthorn and Collingwood had the most members in Victoria last year, at about 32,000. If you take the popultion of victoria to be 3million adults then 1 percent is 30,000. 10 percent is 300,000

so at 30,000 members collingwood have one twelth of their supporters as members, and Hawthorn have one sixth

The figures for the other four clubs would be interesting, as it would indicate which clubs are most vulnerable. I would guess that the 20,000 north supporters would be near saturation.

 

[Reggi]

it would be pretty obvious to most that Sydney is the most popular team

They still have a substantial following and members in melbourne

Their Sydney membership has been full for four years with a long waiting list and for people in Sydney tickets are impossible to get.

The ratings (TV) also confirm this you will find that Sydney were the most watched team on TV by a long way

The research was poll data by Roy Morgan Research and is without doubt the most accurate in the country i know because I work in the industry - it was done independantly and not by a football club.

 

[Reggi]

Some excerpts from the swans site

Season 1999 confirmed the QBE Sydney Swans as the most televised sporting team in Australia.
This was achieved through the combined reach of both Channel 7 and their regional affiliate Prime TV.
Cumulative National Television Audience for Season 1999 exceeded 24,330,000.

Signage delivers association with the most popular team in Australia (Bulletin Morgan Poll - 2 Million). !!!!!

 

[Arch]

you cant judge the most popular team by saying they were the most watched on tv, in a city that has by far the highest population and is totally devoted to just one team. thats plain ridiculous.

the fact that tickets are hard to get might have something to do with the fact that the swans play in a stadium holding about 40 000, in a city of almost 5 million. eagles tickets and crows tickets are also damn hard to get because people must buy memberships or else risk missing out on games.same reason they have higher memberships than melbourne clubs, is because ppl in melbourne know they can get into a game they wanna see without actually NEEDING to buy a membership.
as for the swans having substantial support in melbourne,thats bollocks. they have a few old hacks who still remember when bobby skilton pulled on the jersey- but honestly sydney never pulls a crowd in melbourne.
this "research" which proves sydney is the most popular team is obviuosly flawed.
(whether you work in the industry or not)

 

[Dan26]

According to the Herald Sun last year

Essendon 16%
Collingwood 13%
Richmond 12%
Carlton 11 %

It's obvious, not just from stats, but from observation that Essendon is the most popular team

As for Sydney. How many of Sydneys 4 million people actually got for the Swans. It's like calling the Melbourne Storm Rugby's most popular team. Ridiculous.

Sydney were the most watched team, but so what ? Every second game they play, gets beamed live back into Melbourne - Australian Rules territory. (And I believe they get telecast live into Sydney too)

It has been provcen over the last 5 years or so, that Essendon has overtakem Collingowwd, as the most popular team.

As for membership, Pessimistic, this is only to do with the fact that Hawthorn was about to Merge. Sudden;y their membership jumps up ? They have maintained that, but that's becasue they have those members on their books, and they can send renewal letters out to those members. Once you've got members on your books, a high membership is not hard to maintain.

Essendon and Collingwood, don't need to buy as many memberships (per capita), becasue the club will survive no matter what.

It will be interesting to see what the memberships are like in 10 years time

 

[Dan26]

I think the vulnerablity of teams is in direst corrlelation to the amount of members they have, taking into account the number of supporters they have.

For example, as you mentioned pessimistic, North would probably have they highest membership in the competition, when you divided their 20,000 members by their total supporters. (perhaps 1 in 5 ? Who know)

The Bullodgs, also in excess of 20,000 members, are another example.

Essendon and Collingwood, despite having 30,000 members, do hot have a huge proportion of members to supporters, as the y both have huge supporter bases.

The Kangaroos have the highest proportion of members to supporters.

It's no coincidence, that Hawthormn, and the Roos, two clubs, who this decade have been marked for extinction, have such a high proportion.

If you are not vulnerable, then your proportion won't be as high. It's as simple as that.

 

[Dan26]

Reggi, those percentages you posted are pure crap.

If you are finding out which of the 16 clubs has the most support, then the overall percentage (when you add up all 16 clubs), will obviously add up to 100 %

You say Sydney has 11 %

You say Brisbane has 6%

And you say WCE, ADEL, Ess, and Coll have 5 %

That adds up to 37%

That means the other 10 clubs have to share the 63% between them. If this is the case, then those ten clubs would average over 6% support each.

Where did you get the figure from. Did you do maths at school ?

 

[Simon]

Some people don't follow football Dan24.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

But since they're only asking WHICH team, not DO you support a team, than they should add up to 100.

 

[Simon]

Where did Reggi say they asked WHICH team and not A team?

The Herald-Sun figures that Dan24 provided would be based on which team, but the Morgan figures would have to be based on an estimate of the population as a whole. Otherwise it would be wrong.

 

[Reggi]

Simon picked up the point - it will not add up to 100 because there are people in Australia who don't support any team

 

[Arch]

then whats the point doing a survey to find the most popular team, if some of the people you ask arnt even AFL fans at all.
that just makes those stats even more flawed.
but thanks Roy Morgan for all your effort anyway.
(glad i didnt pay for it)

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Point taken.

Besides, we all know what Sydney-siders are like when it comes to jumping on a bandwagon!

The accuracy is entirly dependent on the questions that were asked. People (in general) in NSW and Qld will automatically think Swans and Lions when hearing the phrase AFL, even if they aren't diehard supporters. (Much the same as the rest of us would say we support our state teams in Cricket and Soccer, despite the fact we may not really be that interested). In Victoria people are far more likely to say they don't follow a team if that's the case, simply because there isn't one state team.

 

[lily]

Could sydney be the most watched team last year, because channell 7 and its supposedly non biased commentary show more Sydney games at Prime time then any other?
Sydney is a one city team, in the city which has the most people in Australia, wouldnt be obvious that most sydney siders, the bandwagoners they are would watch *their* own team? It helps aswell to increase ratings when there games are shown live on Channel 7 aswell to the rest of Australia.
It is obvious that some teams do get shown a hell of a lot more then others, these being Sydney and North Melbourne,- funny how these are *Special bruces teams*.
Why does Sydney get so much tv coverage, and not have the results last yr. but a team like the Lions- who are both Melbourne and Brisbane based in theory are given a rough deal despite coming 3rd and only losing to the eventual premiers, with the enhancement of some dodgy judical calls?
People can only watch the games they are presented with- would be intresting to see the percentage of swans games shown live compared to others.

 

[SpecialBruce]

Lili. It's got nothing to do with my friend Bruce McAvaney, it's just channel 7 sux.

 

[Tim]

When you live in Melbourne and go to watch the Bombers at the MCG all the time it is easy to dismiss claims about the popularity of Sydney. However, the following figures make interesting reading. The average per game attendance for matches in Melbourne last season in order were:
Essendon 56,417
Collingwood 43,337 (remarkable as wooden spooners)
Richmond 42,746
Sydney 41,317
Carlton 36,814

In 1998, Sydney's average in Melbourne was 45,372. Over the two years 43,345 during which time they played each of the 9 Melbourne teams at least once and the double-ups were Essendon, Melbourne and Carlton at Optus (the latter two games being the only sub-30,000 crowds). Pre-1998 they seldom played at the MCG or Waverley.

In 1999, Freo's largest non-Derby crowd was at the WACA against Sydney. Adelaide's largest non-Derby crowd was for the match against Sydney. Port's largest non-Derby crowd was Essendon followed closely by Geelong, Brisbane and Sydney.

Essendon this season will play at the country's two largest capacity grounds. From next year Sydney will play at least 5 games at Homebush (capacity reduced to 80,000 over summer)and there are plans to build an extra stand at the SCG to raise the capacity to the low 50s (but not for next year). The Swans currently have access to 30,000 tickets only at the SCG - about 10,500 go to SCG members where the waiting list is so long that if a Swans fan put their name down in 1982 they MIGHT be close to getting a membership.

No doubt it will take a while for the Swans to regularly fill Homebush but for the big matches it it will happen - West Coast, Collingwood, Carlton and Geelong matches at the SCG sell-out in February. There are 18-20,000 names on the Swans waiting list. The AFL's monster may be just about to wake up.

 

[Pessimistic]

Tim, It appears the wrong team was sent to sydney. Not the first or last big boobo by the AFL

 

[i be mashed potatoes]

Dis be da main dawg, Bounce back atchya

I just wanna say dat BOMBERS ARE CLEARLY DA BEST TEAM....who gives a **** how many homies watch da game on TV? Isn't that obvious dat day don't care about dair club and prefer to sit around on their fat asses and drink a can o' 40?! Man, you gotta wake up and smell dat shit on your face...Bombers are da best and ain't dat da honest truth?!

Compton rules y'all

 

[jane]

I think the most popular teams for members are the ones that have the most members. West Coast, Port etc.
All these clubs except Brisbane have capped memberships, because of the availabilty of seating, due to stadiums that only seat 40,000.
Can you imagine if these teams had stadiums available to play on that seated 100,000.
How many members would they have then.
Some Melbourne clubs. Doggies, North and Sts.Total members add up to a capped West Coast.If they weren't capped you could add another team to that. thus 4 melbourne to one West Coast.
To me iut say melbourne people like footy, go to footy but wont be tied down to paying for it yearly.They like the flexibility.

 

[Arch]

Tim,
how much did plugger have to do with that ??? I think that being his last season, evrywhere sydney played would've had big crowds, simply because they wanted to see the last of the big man. (ie that docker crowd at the WACA esp. Will those numbers be sustainable without him ??? (or a successful side).
just a thought....

 

[Dave]

Jane, some assorted ramblings

using membership figures as a pointer for club popularity can be misleading as teams such as W.C. Adelaide etc basically have only one other club as competition. Sydney & Brisbane have none!. Each Melbourne club is competing with 9 others for a slice pie, that whilst it may be larger, is not big enough to provide them each with the support that the other states can generate for one or at most two teams.

Whilst I have no doubt that West Coast, Adelaide et al would draw larger crowds of they had 100,00 plus stadiums, imagine how many people would attend footy if there was only one or two clubs in Melbourne? They couldn't build a stadium big enough!

Personally I'd say if you were looking at popularity in terms of people who follow football (ie rather than just asking everyone who do you follow) most of the non-Vic clubs are going to come out in front, simply because they don't have the competition.

seeya,

Dave

 

[jane]

I believe that Adelaide and Perth have 1/3 rd the population base of Melbourne to draw support from.So the odds are the same as the Melbourne teams, population based.
Also I have family in Brisbane and just because they have only one team doesn't mean that AFL followers only support that team.To the contrary, in Brisbane a lot of AFL supporters are ex- Victorians and they dont change their team cuas ethey moved states.
Just pick up inside footy magazine in the letters to the editor you will see heaps of Bombers etc living in QLD.

 

[learn english]

Dave have a bit of a think to yourself about what the words "most popular" mean. Think think think. Got it? Spot the problem yet?

"Most popular" means simply - appeals to the most number of people. That and only that. Competition has nothing to do with it.

OK- so now go and have a look at the title of this thread. Can you spot the mistake? The
thread is about most popular- not about highest rate per capita or anything else - just plain and simple most popular team.