MLS attendance has risen 6.3 percent on aggregate from this point in 2010. Eleven of last year’s 16 teams have increased attendance, eight are up by five percent or better and four have seen a double-digit increase. Maybe this is the long-awaited World Cup bounce?

The numbers are encouraging, but they belie the truth that MLS is really two leagues: one of successful, well-marketed expansion clubs and one of established disappointments.

Here are the figures for the last five teams that joined MLS after the 2006 World Cup.

* Portland Timbers [18,627, 100 percent]
* Vancouver Whitecaps [20,008, 95.3 percent]
* Philadelphia Union [18,177, 98.3 percent]
* Seattle Sounders [37,189, 104.8 percent]
* Toronto FC [19,876, 99.4 percent]

Here are the figures for five of the league’s original teams that began in 1996.

* New York Red Bulls [18,310, 73.2 percent]
* D.C. United [15,696, 33.4 percent]
* Columbus Crew [10,846, 53.8 percent]
* New England Revolution [12,149, 60.7 percent]
* FC Dallas [13,241, 64.6 percent]

Just two of the league’s original clubs, L.A. [22,641, 83.9 percent] and New York, are in the top seven in average attendance. The Galaxy have David Beckham and Landon Donovan. The Red Bulls have a brand new stadium, Thierry Henry and Rafa Marquez. The numbers are good by MLS standards, but, given the external factors and relative expenditure for those two clubs, a bit underwhelming.

How does MLS kickstart the elderly franchises? Kansas City could offer a model. The Wizards rebranded themselves as Sporting KC, built a new soccer stadium and increased attendance by 81 percent [18,107, 98.1 percent], but one wonders whether that enthusiasm is sustainable. The numbers are through five games at the new venue. FC Dallas, despite doing the same thing in 2005, is now ranked 15th out of 18 teams (with a 17.9 percent increase).

Perhaps the answer rests with the recent expansion franchises. As the sport has matured in North America, MLS targeted a different audience. Portland, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Seattle and Toronto don’t have great players to attract crowds. What they do have is urban, soccer-specific stadiums, accessible to large populations of educated, internet-savvy people in their 20s (the demographic that is receptive to soccer).

The new stadiums cater to the hardcore supporters. The new clubs have cultivated an atmosphere is still family friendly, but is vibrant, organic and a fun place to drink and spend an evening. The results have been impressive. The Sounders outdraw the Mariners by about 14,000 fans. Even if they are hipsters, they are hipsters buying season tickets and showing up for every game.

Contrast that with how some of these clubs started. If MLS was expanding to Boston in 2011 instead of 1996, would they bypass the tens of thousands of college kids and young adults living without cars in the city so the team could play in Foxboro and corner the soccer mom market?

Moving teams such as the Revolution and D.C. United to soccer-specific, urban accessible stadiums might help. Another team in New York might drum up a rivalry and interest for both teams, but it’s far easier to generate excitement for a new club.

Moving the Revolution to Somerville makes sense, but it’s no panacea. It would alienate the club’s current fans in the suburbs, and the club is already a known and not especially popular commodity. Even if the demographic is right, there’s no guarantee a vibrant fan culture would emerge.

[Photo via Getty]