Average of almost 30,000 per game doesn't seem bad to me. Yes, Tampa and Oakland are problems but everyone is aware that both have stadium situations to resolve.

That's less than 75% capacity. I'd say half of the parks are about 50-60% capacity about 90% of the time.

20 of 30 NHL arenas were at 97% capacity last season. Only 4 were less than 85%.

22 of 30 NBA arenas were at 90% capacity last season. Only 5 were less than 85%.

I know, smaller venues, half the games...but still. Lots of empty MLB stadiums year round.

I wonder if new stadium bumps are lost money in the long run. You get the initial boost, but looking at new stadium attendance data would be interesting over lets say a ten year period.

Of course, winning is probably important, but I think Oakland and Tampa are lost markets.

They're only lost money if the team actually pays for it. The model is that taxpayers do. And they always lose.

I got an interesting flip side of this from a Pittsburgh city councilman. Urban economic development is my thing, and I'm pretty anti-public financing for a stadium. But his point was that when the team is already there and might go elsewhere, you're looking at a major employer leaving, particularly in the context of Pittsburgh where the "rebound" has largely been in the form of white collar jobs. So maybe you just give them the stadium knowing you're going to lose, but also knowing you'll at least keep those jobs around.

That's why teams have leverage pretty often. And hold the city taxpayers hostage.