Crowd count: Copa quarterfinals average 64,062
- by Paul Kennedy @pkedit, Jun 20, 2016
Copa Centenario Crowds:
ATT. GAME (VENUE)
83,263 Mexico-Jamaica (Pasadena, Calif.)
79,194 Colombia-Peru (East Rutherford, N.J.)
70,547 Mexico-Chile (Santa Clara, Calif.)
69,491 Argentina-Chile (Santa Clara, Calif.)
67,439 USA-Colombia (Santa Clara, Calif.)
67,319 Mexico-Venezuela (Houston)
60,025 Mexico-Uruguay (Glendale, Ariz.)
59,183 Argentina-Venezuela (Foxborough, Mass.)
53,885 Argentina-Panama (Chicago)
53,158 Brazil-Ecuador (Pasadena, Calif.)
51,041 USA-Panama (Philadelphia)
49,438 Ecuador-Haiti (East Rutherford, N.J.)
47,322 USA-Ecuador (Seattle)
45,808 Costa Rica-Colombia (Houston)
45,753 Argentina-Bolivia (Seattle)
42,766 Colombia-Paraguay (Pasadena, Calif.)
40,166 Uruguay-Jamaica (Santa Clara, Calif.)
39,642 USA-Costa Rica (Chicago)
36,187 Brazil-Peru (Foxborough, Mass.)
28,241 Brazil-Haiti (Orlando)
27,260 Chile-Bolivia (Philadelphia)
25,560 Venezuela-Jamaica (Chicago)
23,002 Venezuela-Uruguay (Philadelphia)
20,190 Peru-Haiti (Seattle)
19,392 Chile-Bolivia (Foxborough, Mass.)
17,133 Costa Rica-Paraguay (Orlando)
13,466 Panama-Bolivia (Orlando)
11,937 Peru-Ecuador (Glendale, Ariz.)
23 comments about "Crowd count: Copa quarterfinals average 64,062".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
51,041 USA-Panama (Philadelphia) - this should be USA-Paraguay not Panama
And did Chile play Bolivia twice? Really!?
I'm glad this tournament has been so successful, after almost being cancelled. Orlando was not so great a host, which is odd, since MLS is doing well there. I think they had bad weather. The fact the USA still gets outdrawn by Mexico & Argentina is sad. Fox said Mexico is one of the 2 home teams in this tournament. Perhaps if we played in Vermont, we'd have home field advantage!
One of the Orlando games was played during a Tropical Storm. Lots of rain and flooding going on and some tornado warnings. Mexico is clearly the most popular team to see; Santa Clara drew the most crowds of the top 10 venues. Hispanic teams have long been a favorite draw at the Rose Bowl. The USMNT had their best attendance in Seattle, and that game also produced the largest crown of the 3 games held at that venue.
Correction: The USMNT had its largest fan draw at Lincolon Field in Philadelphia five days prior to the match with Ecuador. On June 11 when playing Paraguay, the USMNT had 3,500 more fans in the stadium seats in Philly than against Ecuador but it still fell 17,500 shy of being a sellout at Lincoln Financial Field.
Seattle was home field advantage for the USA. I suspect that would continue if Mexico were the opponent.
Too bad the tickets were ridiculously priced.
Margret, if you can share what the Seattle stadium tickets were priced for the USA - Ecuador match, that would help out a lot. Seeing the actual dollar costs per ticket type/stadium section would place a lot of things in perspective for the readers here. Thank you.
I am glad that SA's Paul Kennedy did not shy away from stating that the US game against Ecuador featured the lowest attendance for the quarterfinals. Seattle ought to be embarrassed. That attendance versus Ecuador meant 20,000 gaping holes in the stands of Seattle's statdium. I am sure many a Ecuadoran team delegation member was shaking the head, wondering how poorly supported the USMNT is in its own country. It deserves to be asked: Over 51,000 in Philadelphia, yet only above 47,000 in Seattle? That should have been a sellout in Seattle. The fact that it was not speaks to many tournament failures and organizational problems.
Wouldn't Ecuadoran fans (and futbol fans in the entire hemisphere) be scratching their heads in confusion as to how Ecuador vs. Haiti drew more fans in the stands than the USA versus Ecuador?
Something is very odd in a tournament where Brazil only garners 36,000 in Foxborough -- leaving over half the stadium fully empty -- in a match that Brazil needed to win or at least tie. That's fans' dream, needing to see a marquee name team in a match they must win in a tournament with a very prominent trophy. (A tournament that matters, not the endless supply of meaningless national team test matches that a host of international teams play on US soil and the upcoming 20th or 22nd iteration of summertime meaningless big club July warmups). People forget that back home in Brazil the fans of the Selecao hanker for a tangible trophy again, particuarly after the embarassment two years ago against Germany. Thus the normal fan in the Northeast of the USA would calculate that Brazil came to Copa America 2016 to win it; a trophy they have not won since 2007. On these SA web pages, I'd much prefer to read analysis from Soccer America staff as to how this can possibly be the case that Brazil did not draw at least 62,000 for this match in Foxborough/Boston. Sure, Neymar's opting out of the tournament is/was a harbinger of bad things to come, but only just above 36,000 for a perfect summer night? This is embarrassing all around. People forget that that many of these venues only had three matches as host. The chances to see any of these teams live are few and far between (or just about non existent) for most fans. The fact that most fans stayed away for a Brazil match that mattered speaks to the dying luster of the Brazil star in the world of international football (aka good riddance Dunga) -- but it speaks much louder as lousy Copa America tournament organization.
The tournament was put on hold for a long time due to the investigations into FIFA and its attendant leagues (i.e.: CONMEBOL). The green light to proceed was given with little time to put the tournament together. Fans who follow the game knew about it, but there was no time to advertise as is done for a World Cup. My local tv stations sports segments have covered high school football summer sessions, NBA, I believe NHL and a lot of golf. No soccer coverage for any Centenario or European tournaments. Again, so little time to advertise. The organizers have done pretty well with the hand they were dealt, and attendance has surpassed what they considered would be a successful tournament.
Please take no offense, for that is is not what is intended by my comments. What I am after is facts, candor, & honest assessment. So I disagree with the overall thrust of your comments, Ms. Peeler. The USA boasts (often) that it can do what no other nation on earth can do when given the nod to host such events for both athletics and in the overall entertainment industries. There was more time to prepare for USA's men's World Cup 1994, but it was originally Colombia's tournament as awarded by FIFA. The USA WC '94 organization committee did not have even three years to do all the necessary legwork - in a time period long before the internet and ability to market to every living person's handheld smartphone. Every two years the US cities and stadiums have had practice for this due to the Gold Cups. This 2016 Copa Centenario is merely a small extension of the Gold Cup - in reality. There are no valid excuses. None that I have heard or read so far.
Claus, no offense taken. I think we're probably going to agree to disagree. I was fortunate to take advantage of the WC 1994 being moved to the US. My daughter and I managed to get tickets for the initial series of games at the Cottonbowl in Dallas. We were SO looking forward to seeing Maradona play and I was really disappointed when he was ejected from the tournament just hours before his game. I know we ( the USA) are able to step in and provide services and venues if another country falters. I imagine we've had people at the ready to step in in case Qatar had the WC taken away after all of the investigations, etc, of FIFA. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Even with smart phones, computers and the Internet, the tournament had been put on hold and no one was going to spend any more money unless the decision was made to proceed with the plans. That word was received in late October, 2015. The venues were chosen in November. The organizers had about 6 months to put the tournament together. Luckily, we have the resources to do that sort of thing. The attendance has been better than the organizers hoped for. We've been holding games in some places where soccer is not a favorite sport...actually, most places. As I pointed out in another post, other sports in many areas of the USA are favored and soccer is, at best, an afterthought. When we moved from Southern California to Arkansas, we went from a very soccer-oriented culture to a place where the local newspaper's sports editor would not allow any coverage of the high school games because "soccer is a communist sport". That was in the late 90s. It has improved, somewhat, but there are a LOT of folks out there who have never watched a game, nor do they ever intend to. I talk about the game a lot and some of my friends have been curious enough to check out some WC games on tv. I haven't convinced anybody to watch any of the Centenario games, but I've sure enjoyed watching them all!
To sit in the second level in Seattle would have set you back $185 plus rip off ticketmaster fees. Absurd pricing.
Comparable tickets to the Euros quarterfinals around about half, and even less for the group stage. The stadiums there are almost all full.
Wow, now that's interesting data (and ridiculous pricing) which explains a lot about these relatively poor attendance numbers.
And the question is, who gets the money? USSF? Promoter? Participating countries?
Will Chicago's Copa America organizing committee/stadium planners have their act together for Wednesday night's semifinal Chile vs. Colombia? It would be nice to see (and hear) more than just 53,000 at Soldier Field.
What does organization have to do with it? If the tickets are appropriately priced it will be a sellout. If they aren't (spoiler alert: they aren't) then it probably won't be.
I just checked ticketmaster and there are thousands of seats available, mostly in the upper deck. They range from $235-$275. That is the sole reason attendance is not higher.
Note, however, that the attendance at this tournament is still far higher than at last year's Copa America in Chile.
Hopefully, if we host this tournament again, as rumored, the ticket prices will be more reasonable.
With the ticket prices so high, are the games being blacked out near the venue if the stadiums aren't sold out? If not, then it makes a lot more sense to watch these games in the comfort of your own home while saving a significant amount of money.
No, they aren't being blacked out in the host cities. I wouldn't pay those prices even to watch the USMNT so it's no surprise you aren't going to get 80k to pay them to watch Colombia-Chile.
Agreed!