This morning, the Washington Post fronted a story recognizing that while the Washington Nationals have been a success at the gate so far in terms of tickets sold, team revenue is being curtailed due to the fact that the Nats have a slightly higher percentage of fans who buy tickets but fail to show for the games:
The Nationals sold an average of 32,019 tickets for their first 33 games, from their home opener in April through June 12, a pace that puts them on track to meet their preseason projection of about 2.5 million tickets for the season.But the average number of people who attended those games was 24,679, according to data provided by the D.C. Sports & Entertainment Commission, which operates RFK. This figure, known as the turnstile count, is rarely divulged by professional teams but is closely monitored in the sports industry.
The rate of unused tickets at RFK was 23 percent, slightly higher than the 15 to 20 percent that a professional team should expect, industry analysts said. And the difference means less money for the city in taxes from parking spaces, hot dogs and all the other things fans buy at RFK.
So far, the higher no-show rate is being attributed to the large percentage of corporate season ticket holders who bought ticket packages, but aren't using them. Further . . .
The unpredictable aspect of how many fans use their tickets might make Wall Street leery of giving the city a good rate on bonds that are financed by tax revenue from the stadium sales, said Natwar M. Gandhi, the District's chief financial officer. He used this argument when he recommended that the city accept a private financing plan from Deutsche Bank. No decision has been made.
Which of course, would drive up the price of the new stadium before you can say, "eminent domain". How much more, of course, would be up to the folks on Wall Street.
Left unsaid in the article is one bitter truth that I mentioned last October: If the revenue collected from the stadium taxes doesn't cover the debt service, then the balance will have to come out of the District's general revenues.
I don't take any joy in this news. Now that the Nats are here, I want to see them succeed. I've already been to four games this season, and will probably be going to a lot more. But it's still sobering to see that the warnings we heard in the run-up to approval of the stadium may very well come to pass after all.
UPDATE: A few days ago, Ryan at Distinguished Senators was wondering out loud why the first place Nationals couldn't draw more than 40,000 fans to their last weekend series.
Obviously some of the no-shows are because of the backscratching that this town is built on and the people who bought the tickets as a status symbol.
But, I also think that part of the problem was a sort of irrational exuberance over the team. They were floating figures of a long list of names eager to snap up season tickets, so many felt that they’d have to get their name on that list to not be seated in the hinterlands, even if they didn’t plan to go to every game.
One other factor… I’ve been to 15 or so games this season. I can count on one hand (OK, maybe a hand and a half) the number of games that I’ve been to that it didn’t sprinkle or at least look like it was going to rain.
The Stadium isn’t a draw at all. You’re not going there for the food or atmosphere as you would at a modern stadium. The game’s the thing.
As a result, if there is the threat of rain, those who aren’t diehards like me, would be less inclined to go.