Cincinnati?

I can't speak of all leagues but very few second or third division clubs around the world draw that many fans consistently. I remember Fiorentina (in the C2) drew like 33,000 in 2002-2003 but they were a 1st tier club competing in the the 4th only because of financial troubles. Their ticket prices were lower but they also had a fan base and booster clubs that wanted to get behind the club and bring them back up to the Serie A right away.

I could be wrong but I can't recall any 2nd or 3rd tier US or Canadian club ever drawing as many fans (as Cincinnati is doing now) since I started following the old NASL in the 70's. Some old NASL teams (Tampa, Cosmos, Minnesota , Vancouver and maybe Seattle once or twice) drew that many on a consistent basis but not for an extended period of time.

 

Rangers in Scotland and Juventus in Italy drew well at lower levels after off the field issues relegated them, but they are among the biggest clubs in their respective countries.

If we bring in ticket prices, then I think it is fair to bring up revenues and profits. Of course, clubs don't divulge that information, but we know FC Cincinnati revenue was far higher than anticipated and they turned a profit in 2016 and felt comfortable that a profit would happen in 2017. How many USL clubs can manage start up costs and even increased spending on staff and still turn a profit in their first two years? 2 million dollars on the field expansion they did for 2017 is not chump change for this level, and yet it is covered due to success.

 

I really like these remarks.

-Is it known whether or not that 10,000 benchmark was chosen because their financial goals were breakeven, or did they have an annual loss in mind which could be sustained in the short term? I'm guessing we don't know that.

-Other fans standards....I mean...you can't sweat the little corner of the universe that hangs out on soccer message boards (myself included I know)

- You can't do anything more. The club decides what the price of a ticket is so the only thing the community can do is buy tickets, show up, support the team, and buy merchandise. Those things are all happening.

If people continue to show up and create a fun atmosphere then I honestly don't see any reason why being in MLS matters (provided the club continues to make money and can sustain itself year after year). We value "big league" clubs for a number of reasons but chief among them is that they provide a big atmosphere that is exciting. You don't get that in a minor league baseball stadium, but if Cincinnati's match day experience has the energy of a big league event then what difference does it make I it is playing MLS games or USL games? I love what is happening in Cincinnati. You aren't seeing that level of excitement in other USL markets.

 

Berding (the GM) stated that 10,000 goal had other factors for the club's health. For example, getting sponsors on board they had that number in mind selling them on FCC. If they failed sponsors might pull out or not renew. With 17,000 not only are sponsors happy, other sponsors want in and makes bargaining position in the future that much stronger.

If we had 7,000 people on average for 2016 the club likely wouldn't be able to expand staff, open a store downtown, or sign certain players this off season. In order to accommodate better attendance they had to hire additional people for match day and in the office. Despite these additional unplanned costs, they still stated made a profit which given start up costs they weren't expecting.

One expense that is moving off the books from my understanding is television. Last year FCC spent production budget on showing home matches on local channels 12 and 64. They mentioned how this was a tough sell, and then the ratings came in. They were much better than expected so for 2017 home and away matches are being broadcast and I believe 12 and 64 are footing the bill for production (I wish I had a source on that).

We did spend 2 million on the field expansion, and this was expected to affect the bottom line (obviously) but even with that profits are expected to happen comfortably. This also plays into how ambitious Lindner (our billionaire owner) can feel about MLS plans and a stadium. If you turn a profit when you expected to lose or break even this early it gives confidence.

I understand we do not have full transparency, but every indicator they've given is positive and they even admitted didn't expect quite the response they have seen.

 

Juventus also had like 4/5 World Cup winners and were relegated for the first time ever. They were Serie A champs two consecutive years prior to that and were bound to draw that many fans. They were another story though and nothing like Cincinnati.

 

Being in MLS has been the goal of management from day one. Lindner wants a top flight team in the city and has the money to make it happen. I worry if MLS fizzles out the enthusiasm and drive form the top down could wane.

That said, I am fine with having some time (4-8 years) in USL and being a competitive side. Big thing is we really need to win an USL Cup in the coming years to cement ourselves in a city that has felt defeated for a while. FC Cincinnati could be part of the sense of new found optimism you see in Cincinnati with the various urban renewal projects that are improving the city.

 

One thing about MLS is the clubs building and owning their own stadiums. Even if the league loses some of its lure, the stadiums will still be intact and that has to help the teams and the league financially.

I guess in the span of time, 4-8 years years isn't all that much. Maybe they can get a team going in time for the 2026 USA hosted WC?

 

Napoli drew big crowds after they were relegated as well.

 

Napoli were another exception. After 2001, they were always a Serie A team and got relegated to the Serie B and C only because of financial problems and a weak , cheap and/or corrupt owner. Then in 2004 film producer and Giada's first cousin Aurelio De Laurentiis bought the club, spent money and brought them back up. They were historically a top tier team even though they never won much since the Maradona days. They also have a history and a huge fan base in Naples though and its still can't be compared to what Cincy is doing now in Ohio.

 

Here are 2016-17 Bundesliga II attendance figures. I think you'll be surprised -10 teams average over 20k per game. Top 2 are VfB Stuttgart @ 48,768and Hannover 96 @ 35,227. USL/NASL have a long way to go to get to this level.

http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/2-bundesliga-2016-2017/1/

 

To be fair, second division attendance in Germany and England is unlike what is seen anywhere else in the world. Few first divisions draw such crowds.

 

I

Interesting numbers in Germany. I am sure they still have a history and fan base. You still can't compare it to what's taking place in Cincinnati who were not even thought of a year and a week ago....

 

So what in your opinion is the standard? Who does the US aspire to be? Is it the Japan, Australia, Chile, Russian leagues? Or is England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Mexico? - Who all have attendance figures of the top 5-10 teams in their second divisions that easily average 10-15k with several averaging 20-25k. Examples of Cincinnati-esque #s are FC Lens in Ligue 2 averaging 27,939 and Independiente in Argentina's Primera B @ 27,667.

Take the ink I posted earlier and browse around the different leagues. Plenty of first Division teams draw far more than Cincinnati has so far.

I keep saying it, I'm not knocking Cincinnati and what they have done and where they are hopefully going. It is great for the growth of the game here. Let's just hope it becomes more the norm and also that they can translate it into something bigger and sustainable.

 

Cincy is the east coast's Sacramento. Attendance juggernaut ,they gotta be in the next round. Those are the kind of numbers you fudge the rules a little bit on.

 

Somehow, I am not sure that MLS really is an issue. It seems to be more about the team, at least for now, as long as they are thinking MLS. Hard to say what happens if they don't get into MLS, but MLS doesn't have mindshare in Cincinnati.

I also think that being at the University of Cincinnati is an aspect of their success. The stadium is a Division I college football stadium, so it feels big league, which make the team seem big league.

 

I think the USL to MLS model that Orlando did and possibly other cities (ex: Sacramento) are trying is great. It builds awareness of the club, builds a fan base, and creates goodwill because these type of clubs are ambitious and tend to be winners. The issue is if MLS plans fizzle out the ownership scales back and could see such a club go into a spiral.

Regarding Nippert, it helps that the club has put money into the stadium and done signage around to make it feel like a home. I'd also say it wouldn't feel "big league" if we had 5,000-8,000 people there every match. There is value in being in a venue that is majority full. Even our 20,000 crowds have an entire upper deck section that is empty. If we were to get our own SSS, I'd guess 20,000-25,000 capacity with goal being 90-100% full rather than having a 35,000 like Nippert.

 

Part of why Nippert makes a difference is it is a much higher quality stadium than all but maybe one or two lower level soccer teams play in. It is essentially an MLS quality stadium. Compare that to say, Indy who plays in a 29 year old stadium with bleacher seating, and no built in amenities. That quality of Nippert goes a long way to getting fans to come back. When I go to Indy Eleven games I am very picky about which seats I buy because if I am not it will result in a very uncomfortable experience, and I'll leave the stadium with a cramped back and I'm not even 30 yet.

 

This is true. Despite being initially built in the 1920s Nippert underwent a big renovation in 2015 modernizing it. Not done either as supposed to be a new video screen installed this year or next. It is a good symbiotic relationship between UC and FCC and think MLS would have been fine with it up to five years ago. They have the SSS mandate and to be competitive with other cities have to manage one.

 

too bad Nippert wont be allowed top be used, We could have the Old Legends Cup between The Timbers and FCC!

 

My point was that a part of FC Cinci's success is driven by the fact that they are real pro players playing at a real stadium, not semi pros playing are a youth athletics facility in Northern Kentucky or a public high school down the road.

If they're bringing in 20k+ as a USL side, I'd hate to see them build a 25k SSS instead of seeing what they could do with a 35k capacity existing facility it they get into MLS.

 

Orlando is the model to me. They have a great stadium that has 25,000 capacity and they are filling it. There is definitely something about a full stadium that adds to the atmosphere that a larger less full one lacks. Also, ticket scarcity drives demand, as I've met people who plan to come to matches, but are in no rush because they know Cincinnati will not sell out even on a great day.

 

The real question is how many people would come to a regular MLS regular-season game (i.e. a Saturday or Sunday afternoon game that's not a derby like Columbus, not against a team where a grudge rivalry has emerged, and with the payoffs not yet at stake) at MLS prices. If it'd be in the 30,000 range, wouldn't it be better to keep using Nippert if the revenue sharing deal was up to snuff for MLS HQ?

That way, the whole stadium could be opened up for 2-3 big games that the team promotes hell out of in the same way that the Quakes do for a few games a year at Stanford Stadium or the NFL stadium, the difference being that if Cincinnati is chasing/going deep into the playoffs an extra 10k tickets can be put on the market at short notice.

 

Your argument is with MLS and its SSS policies rather than FCC. FCC would be happy to stay at Nippert because the rent and revenue sharing is great for the club. Comparing it to Meadowlands in New Jersey or RFK in DC is not close. I get MLS stance, because if you demand it and then make exceptions people start saying "New York City plays in a baseball stadium, why can't we?" Having blanket policies for expansion cities reduces headaches for the league.

In terms of demand, it is impossible to say. My guess is the core 11,000 fans would not bat an eye, but the extra 6,000-15,000 people might waver a bit. Why I think winning now is so critical. People need an emotional connection and good feelings with the club as it is competing against a 50 year old NFL and 150 year old MLB side for interest. Winning persuades people to pay like nothing else.

My guess is most clubs would rather have the issue of missing out on a few thousand ticket sales to maintain scarcity. For example, the Bailey (supporters section) is sold out and I know some people re-sell tickets for more than face value due to demand. This means season ticket holders will be far more likely to renew knowing may be only way to be in the section. I've met several people who casually plan to go to games, but say "you can always wait and see the weather, walk up and get a ticket". Both arguments have merit, but most clubs prefer cost certainty.

 

Nippert doesn't make sense because they don't control the revenue streams for non-soccer events (concerts, etc.) and don't have complete control over scheduling.

Being in a smaller market puts them at a handicap. MLS can live with the Revs and NYCFC situations (top 10 markets), but MLS wouldn't allow the relatively smaller Cincinnati play in a college football stadium controlled by the University.

If Cincinnati builds a brand new SSS, then they are interesting.