Rank your city's sports teams by popularity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Are there still Expos/Nationals fans in Montreal?

Same question for Grizzlies fans in Vancouver, or have they moved on to supporting the Raptors?

There are close to zero former Expos fans who have transitioned to the Nationals.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

This is just wrong. The Commies are widely regarded as the worst run team (maybe the Jags might have something to say about it) with the worst stadium in the NFL with the worst owner in the league. This is well known.

Again, I don't understand this logic.

The Knicks are arguably the worst run NBA team with the worst owner. James Dolan is an imbecile. Yet the Knicks are huge locally and there's no NBA arena with a remotely comparable atmosphere.

Whether or not the owner is an idiot or the organization is poorly run has nothing to do with whether there's an intense fanbase. Washington is an NFL town, and loves its Redskins/Commanders.

Also, how is the stadium terrible? It's a newish stadium that's one of the biggest in the NFL. And it was recently renovated.

[Acajack]

So, over the years for my work I've been involved on committees and boards whose task it was to "test" names to be given to various things or entities. We'd put ourselves back in our schoolkid and teenager mind to find any possible mockery or corruption of the name that could be embarrassing. We'd search the world to seek out an obscure indigenous language in Papua New Guinea that has an obscene word that sounds like the proposed name.

Yes, serious organizations really do this.

So the Washington Football Team, a billion-dollar enterprise in one of the most prestigious sports leagues in the world, in a country that is politically divided and incredibly touchy and suspicious, actually chose a name for the team in the nation's capital that will be shortened by most everyone to... Commies?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pico44

This is absolutely correct. In fact, DC is one of the easier cities to identify the very-clear number one. Other cities with obvious number ones: Boston—Sox, Chicago—Bears, St Louis—Cardinals, Denver—Broncos, Dallas—Cowboys, Phoenix—Suns, Cincinnati—Reds. Slightly less obvious number-ones, but still pretty obvious: LA—Lakers, Philly—Eagles, MN—Twins, Miami—Dolphins, Atlanta—Braves, Pittsburgh—Steelers.

New York is tough. Such a ridiculously huge mass of people makes every sport feel massively important. If St Louis had the number of insane die-hard hockey fans that Greater NY has, it’d be a Blues town and it wouldn’t be close. And it’s like that with every sport. My feeling is that the Knicks are ultimately number one. Nothing gets this city to vibrate like the mere possibility of the Knicks being good. Remember Linsanity? That was like, two or three weeks of the Knicks being good and MSG was actually glowing red.

st. louis has a hardcore hockey base but its pretty metro-centered and doesnt have the same numbers as the cardinal
fanbase. “cardinals nation” is regional and basically stretches from the gulf over to the rockies - the historical extent of KMOX. southern and western expansion baseball teams have eroded this footprint - its closer to iowa/ central and southern illinois/kentucky/west tennessee/arkansas/eastern missouri now.

[Crawford]

I noticed a big Cardinals presence throughout the Delta, which makes sense, but still surprised me. Also a big Cowboys presence, which also makes sense for historical reasons.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I still think it's the Yankees for New York. They're way more iconic, have wayyyy more history of success, and way more generational talent (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio, Berra, Jeter, Rivera). The Bronx Bombers.

The Knicks are a vastly overrated franchise. They've only won 2 championships, last in 1973. They've been largely irrelevant for the better part of half a century, save for a decent run of success in the 90s with Ewing under Riley and Van Gundy, but they were overshadowed by the Bulls, and since then they've been absolute trash. They barely have a fraction of the star power that the Yankees had/have. Julius Randle is ya'lls best player. Let that sink in. If the Yankees had a Julius Randle equivalent player as their number one, it would be unacceptable.

It's really no contest.

But the question wasn't which franchise was more successful, but rather which one is more popular.

The Yankees overshadow the Mets in popularity, but the Mets definitely has many pockets of popularity that permeates all over the city. The same can't be said about the Nets acting as the popularity foil for the Knicks. When the Knicks are even semi-decent (meaning, they have a chance to win a round or more in the playoffs), the whole city rocks for them and bleeds orange and blue. Last year's Nets team was far more successful than any Knicks teams of the past two decades. They were a KD toe from making the conference championship, and the city by-and-large didn't give two sh#ts.

So you're correct, it's really no contest. But the other way around. Yes, the Yankees are hugely popular, but they don't have the hearts of all NYC denizens. The Knicks do (for better or worse, and outside the small pocketful of true Nets fans out there).

[Crawford]

The Nets have the edge in the Orthodox community (which is substantial, obviously, especially in Brooklyn), and are pretty strong still in Jersey.

But, yeah, this is still a Knicks town, even with all the dysfunction. If they ever field a championship caliber team the region would go bonkers.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by dchan

But the question wasn't which franchise was more successful, but rather which one is more popular.

The Yankees overshadow the Mets in popularity, but the Mets definitely has many pockets of popularity that permeates all over the city. The same can't be said about the Nets acting as the popularity foil for the Knicks. When the Knicks are even semi-decent (meaning, they have a chance to win a round or more in the playoffs), the whole city rocks for them and bleeds orange and blue. Last year's Nets team was far more successful than any Knicks teams of the past two decades. They were a KD toe from making the conference championship, and the city by-and-large didn't give two sh#ts.

So you're correct, it's really no contest. But the other way around. Yes, the Yankees are hugely popular, but they don't have the hearts of all NYC denizens. The Knicks do (for better or worse, and outside the small pocketful of true Nets fans out there).

The thing is, without success there isn’t an easy way to measure popularity. I could also say I’ve heard many Knicks fans over the last couple decades say they are done with the Knicks. At least until they change ownership.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Nets have the edge in the Orthodox community (which is substantial, obviously, especially in Brooklyn), and are pretty strong still in Jersey.

But, yeah, this is still a Knicks town, even with all the dysfunction. If they ever field a championship caliber team the region would go bonkers.

That's interesting. Do you know why that is?

[dchan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The thing is, without success there isn’t an easy way to measure popularity. I could also say I’ve heard many Knicks fans over the last couple decades say they are done with the Knicks. At least until they change ownership.

True, it's not easy. But those same Knicks fans who are "done" will come rushing right back to the team when the team is successful once again. It's almost like an abusive love relationship where one person always says they're going to leave, but can never actually leave because they love their partner too much.

Yes - I compared Knicks fandom to staying in an abusive relationship.

[nito]

Other than the often rumoured NFL London franchise, there isn’t a franchise system which artificially restricts the number of professional teams in the city. As such, anyone – with time, money and effort – can create their own sports team (AFC Wimbledon is the classic example, rising through 6 tiers since being founded in 2002), although the majority have been around for well over a century or more.

Football is the most popular sport in London by far, with the top four clubs being by far the most dominant sides in the city whether it is attendance, broader fanbase, revenue and on-the-field success. Rugby union and cricket also have sizable and growing fan bases, with rugby league last.

The following consists only of professional clubs within the city limits.

1. Arsenal ⚽
2. Tottenham Hotspurs ⚽
3. Chelsea ⚽
4. West Ham United ⚽
5. Crystal Palace ⚽
6. Fulham ⚽
7. Queens Park Rangers ⚽
8. Harlequins 🏉
9. Saracens 🏉
10. Middlesex 🏏
11. Surrey 🏏
12. Charlton Athletic ⚽
13. Brentford ⚽
14. London Irish 🏉
15. Millwall ⚽
16. Leyton Orient ⚽
17. Ealing Trailfinders 🏉
18. London Broncos 🏉
19. AFC Wimbledon ⚽
20. Dagenham & Redbridge ⚽
21. Barnet ⚽
22. Sutton United ⚽

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by mousquet

PSG (Paris-Saint-Germain) must have the biggest budget of all soccer teams in the world by now.
Soccer being the world's most pop sport, no matter how North America dislikes it.

unsurprisingly, this is a completely ignorant statement.

soccer is insanely popular in the usa and has been since at least the 1960s. its huge with youth and up. the little kiddie youth leagues alone have 3M players. and maybe you forgot the women's olympic soccer team gold medals?

there are pro leagues, but just because its not thee front running pro level sport among many does not mean it lacks popularity over here.

next time lift your lazy google finger and do your homework before spouting off your h8tr nonsense.

[suburbanite]

I think a lot of people would be surprised at how close the Raptors are to the Leafs in the Toronto sports hierarchy now. Basketball has had a meteoric rise in the last 10 years amongst young people, and first generation immigrants, of which Toronto has both in spades. Hockey still reigns supreme for now I would say, but its position is no longer as untouchable as it once was.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think a lot of people would be surprised at how close the Raptors are to the Leafs in the Toronto sports hierarchy now. Basketball has had a meteoric rise in the last 10 years amongst young people, and first generation immigrants, of which Toronto has both in spades. Hockey still reigns supreme for now I would say, but its position is no longer as untouchable as it once was.

i wondered about that. makes sense.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dchan

That's interesting. Do you know why that is?

No clue. And not sure if this is a longstanding thing, or since they moved to Brooklyn.

But the Orthodox definitely lean Nets. And in Brooklyn the Orthodox obviously have big numbers.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Perhaps overall, but I will say the last time I was at a sox game last summer, the percentage of Latino fans in the stands was large enough to be very noticeable.

Yeah, MLB has a melting pot fan base like the NFL, but probably even more so. This is why I'd put it ahead of the NFL in almost every market with a strong MLB brand. It might also be the major sport with the most women fans (especially older women). For some reason it seems common for people (at least Gen Xers and millennials) to have grandmothers that are/were baseball fans. My grandmother was a huge Tigers fan and she wasn't even from Detroit.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

its huge with youth and up. the little kiddie youth leagues alone have 3M players. and maybe you forgot the women's olympic soccer team gold medals?

Right, there are millions of kids playing soccer in the U.S. I'd bet more than in France, given the size of the U.S.

My kid is on a club team, and it's now taken very seriously at a young age here. Parents are investing big bucks in training, travel, etc. It's likely only a matter of time before the U.S. is a men's soccer power (obviously it's always been a women's power).

If the U.S. men aren't competing with the likes of Germany, Spain, England, France, etc. in the next 10-20 years, something is seriously wrong with the talent development. Enormous sums are being spent.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, MLB has a melting pot fan base like the NFL, but probably even more so. This is why I'd put it ahead of the NFL in almost every market with a strong MLB brand. It might also be the major sport with the most women fans (especially older women). For some reason it seems common for people (at least Gen Xers and millennials) to have grandmothers that are/were baseball fans. My grandmother was a huge Tigers fan and she wasn't even from Detroit.

actually by grandmothers being fans i would say thats a good sign of why baseball popularity has fallen off over the years.

mlb had abandoned the inner city for the suburban money in the late 1980s -- and also the big games are on too late for youth to watch.

i dont see many people of color at mlb or minor league games at all -- and walking around in the summer, all i see are empty youth ballfields and kids playing basketball or soccer.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, how is the stadium terrible? It's a newish stadium that's one of the biggest in the NFL. And it was recently renovated.

• Video Link
• Video Link

FedEx wasn't recently renovated. It's falling apart and has removed almost 20,000 seats over it' s short life due to varying issues.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

actually by grandmothers being fans i would say thats a good sign of why baseball popularity has fallen off over the years.

mlb had abandoned the inner city for the suburban money in the late 1980s -- and also the big games are on too late for youth to watch.

i dont see many people of color at mlb or minor league games at all -- and walking around in the summer, all i see are empty youth ballfields and kids playing basketball or soccer.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think the prominence of MLB has declined because the fan base skews older. But I think it's still number one because of its crossover appeal, especially in markets with older baseball franchises. It also has far more games which gives more people a chance to attend games. In cities with younger teams and a strong football franchise I could see the NFL team being worth more (Miami, for example).

Honestly, if you had a vote about whether to keep the baseball or football team, I think baseball would win easily:

• New York
• Detroit
• Boston
• Chicago
• Los Angeles
• Atlanta
• Cincinnati
• Cleveland
• Houston

I think the football team would win the vote in these cities:

• Seattle
• Minneapolis
• Milwaukee/Green Bay
• Denver
• Dallas
• Washington
• Pittsburgh
• KC

These seem like they'd be too close to call:

• Tampa Bay
• San Francisco
• Baltimore
• Philadelphia