NYC FC Branding

[Nyk33]

3. Let's hope this team never, ever sees the light of day.

Mmmm...they're going to play. And they'll, in all likelihood, becoming the most well supported pro soccer team in New York City.

How do you know this exactly?

It's annoying how non-New Yorkers are making claims when no one has any idea how this team is going to draw or how much attention they are going to receive.

Just the way pro sports seem to work. Red Bull has, by all accounts, chosen to focus on the suburbs. Which is fine as a marketing strategy, but I imagine it would leave fans in New York proper feeling neglected.

So that leaves you with NYCFC and the Cosmos. When push comes to shove NYCFC's going to be the team playing in the top division. If you're a New Yorker and you want to watch your city's team play in the top soccer league in the country then NYCFC is your team. The Cosmos, for all their bluster, play in what is essentially a minor league. I understand that, given how soccer operates, that's not a perfect analogy (though relegation and promotion don't exist on this side of the Atlantic). Still, I don't see fans willingly ignoring the pro team on the block to support the minor league team. Outside of the Cosmos diehards and those who have moral objections to NYCFC given their ownership (I'm not crazy about the team for that reason myself).

It's like in Chicago, when the Blackhawks sucked and the AHL Chicago Wolves were hot. You heard the "they should have the Blackhawks and Wolves switch leagues" jokes a lot, but it was never serious. Once the 'Hawks got good again you saw where the city's sentiments truly lied. With the pro team.

You're forgetting that fans can just choose to ignore all three NY teams and remain neutral.

You're also forgetting that the team is owned by Manchester City & the Yankees (regardless of who owns both of these teams) which by itself is going to alienate people. There may be some non-fans of those teams willing to take the plunge but there will be those that will be wary.

Finally soccer is still a growing sport in this country and a majority of soccer fans in this area are fans of European teams. There is a very limited market right now and I honestly think that having three teams in this area is a little too much.

[Gothamite]

I think, as discussed before, that the idea fans of the Mets are somehow going to be "alienated" is overblown at best. There will always be some, but any significant amount?

As much as I love the Cosmos, and will continue to buy my season tickets, I don't see how they're terribly relevant to this conversation. They'll continue to draw soccer fans looking for a lower-priced game (90% of their current single-game tickets are $35 or under), but they're a second-division club. People who want to watch the highest level of domestic soccer will be heading elsewhere. So it's not really a three-team market.

And heck, considering how little a presence Red Bulls have in the city (you're sending all your interns to give out tickets and tshirts in pubs in Hoboken instead? Seriously?), it's arguably not even a two-team town next year.

[Nyk33]

I think, as discussed before, that the idea fans of the Mets are somehow going to be "alienated" is overblown at best. There will always be some, but any significant amount?

In my opinion yes.

I believe you are underestimating the amount of hatred Mets fans have for the Yankees. I do not think that Mets fans are going to go support NYCFC in droves because the Yankees are involved.

considering how little a presence Red Bulls have in the city (you're sending all your interns to give out tickets and tshirts in pubs in Hoboken instead? Seriously?), it's arguably not even a two-team town next year.

I'm not going to dispute that Red Bull has half-assed it, at best, when it came to marketing in this area but they do have a fanbase here and you can't count them out of the equation in this city.

Right now Red Bull has the most supporters (as in supporter group members) in this area and no one can deny that.

As much as I love the Cosmos, and will continue to buy my season tickets, I don't see how they're terribly relevant to this conversation. They'll continue to draw soccer fans looking for a lower-priced game (90% of their current single-game tickets are $35 or under), but they're a second-division club. People who want to watch the highest level of domestic soccer will be heading elsewhere. So it's not really a three-team market.

I will still count them simply for the fact that there will be times when the Cosmos and NYCFC will have home games at the same time causing them to have to compete for fans.

Will the Cosmos win? There is a good chance they won't. They might even end up folding and selling to NYCFC or Red Bull for all we know.

[Gothamite]

Let's face it - if all the die-hard Mets fans boycott NYCFC on principle, it won't make a huge dent in the market.

Sure, the Red Bulls have more supporters in official organizations. They've had a 20-year head start, after all, while NYCFC is still a year away from playing its first game.

While we're counting assets, the Red Bulls also have a stadium they can't come close to filling, even when they're the best team in the league. I don't know how impressed we should all be by their collective fanbase.

[Nyk33]

Let's face it - if all the die-hard Mets fans boycott NYCFC on principle, it won't make a huge dent in the market.

Sure, the Red Bulls have more supporters in official organizations. They've had a 20-year head start, after all, while NYCFC is still a year away from playing its first game.

While we're counting assets, the Red Bulls also have a stadium they can't come close to filling, even when they're the best team in the league. I don't know how impressed we should all be by their collective fanbase.

I'm not just talking about die-hard Met fans.

Also you're acting like Red Bull is averaging FC Dallas or New England numbers. When you look at the actual numbers you will see that Red Bull had above average attendance last year.

http://mlsattendance.blogspot.com/

Red Bull: 19,461

Average Attendance: 18,608 (this includes Seattle's 44,038)

[Midway]

From my experience (down here in Texas) there's major buzz about NYCFC among soccer fans in general. I think the bandwagon appeal alone guarantees that this team will draw widespread attention in its inception aside from actual followers.

[VictoriaGooner]

No matter how you see it, NYCFC will be guaranteed buzz for the next little while, even among other club supporters. I know there has been a lot of buzz up here in Victoria about the new club.

[Gothamite]

Let's face it - if all the die-hard Mets fans boycott NYCFC on principle, it won't make a huge dent in the market.

Sure, the Red Bulls have more supporters in official organizations. They've had a 20-year head start, after all, while NYCFC is still a year away from playing its first game.

While we're counting assets, the Red Bulls also have a stadium they can't come close to filling, even when they're the best team in the league. I don't know how impressed we should all be by their collective fanbase.

I'm not just talking about die-hard Met fans.

Also you're acting like Red Bull is averaging FC Dallas or New England numbers. When you look at the actual numbers you will see that Red Bull had above average attendance last year.

http://mlsattendance.blogspot.com/

Red Bull: 19,461

Average Attendance: 18,608 (this includes Seattle's 44,038)

Red Bull's numbers are decent enough, but hardly praiseworthy. Especially for the best team in the league, with great stars, in a market that loves the game. Look, even MLS had to admit they've failed to gain any significant traction in the city. That's why they were so desperate for NY2 in the first place.

And as far as Mets fans go... still not seeing it. I hear it a lot from people who want NYCFC to fail, but the Mets fans I know in the supporters' group laugh it off. They seem pretty sanguine about their relative place in the city; if they boycotted everything with the Yankees' smell on it, they couldn't open a paper or turn on the television.

[Nyk33]

Let's face it - if all the die-hard Mets fans boycott NYCFC on principle, it won't make a huge dent in the market.

Sure, the Red Bulls have more supporters in official organizations. They've had a 20-year head start, after all, while NYCFC is still a year away from playing its first game.

While we're counting assets, the Red Bulls also have a stadium they can't come close to filling, even when they're the best team in the league. I don't know how impressed we should all be by their collective fanbase.

I'm not just talking about die-hard Met fans.

Also you're acting like Red Bull is averaging FC Dallas or New England numbers. When you look at the actual numbers you will see that Red Bull had above average attendance last year.

http://mlsattendance.blogspot.com/

Red Bull: 19,461

Average Attendance: 18,608 (this includes Seattle's 44,038)

Red Bull's numbers are decent enough, but hardly praiseworthy. Especially for the best team in the league, with great stars, in a market that loves the game. Look, even MLS had to admit they've failed to gain any significant traction in the city. That's why they were so desperate for NY2 in the first place.

I think its pretty good for what the league is right now. It's not excellent but it is still pretty good.

Still they could do better obviously but they messed that up with their bad marketing and branding.

And as far as Mets fans go... still not seeing it. I hear it a lot from people who want NYCFC to fail, but the Mets fans I know in the supporters' group laugh it off. They seem pretty sanguine about their relative place in the city; if they boycotted everything with the Yankees' smell on it, they couldn't open a paper or turn on the television.

I already said 500x in this thread today that there will be Mets fans that will cross over but they won't be doing so in droves.

Also it's silly to use the Mets fans in the NYCFC supporters group to state that this means that Mets fans will flock to NYCFC. That will be like me pointing to Yankee fans in the Cosmos and Red Bulls supporters groups as evidence that Yankee fans will flock to those teams.

In my opinion I do not see the majority of Mets fans in this area flocking to NYCFC. I just don't.

[wonderbread]

Let's face it - if all the die-hard Mets fans boycott NYCFC on principle, it won't make a huge dent in the market.

Sure, the Red Bulls have more supporters in official organizations. They've had a 20-year head start, after all, while NYCFC is still a year away from playing its first game.

While we're counting assets, the Red Bulls also have a stadium they can't come close to filling, even when they're the best team in the league. I don't know how impressed we should all be by their collective fanbase.

I'm not just talking about die-hard Met fans.

Also you're acting like Red Bull is averaging FC Dallas or New England numbers. When you look at the actual numbers you will see that Red Bull had above average attendance last year.

http://mlsattendance.blogspot.com/

Red Bull: 19,461

Average Attendance: 18,608 (this includes Seattle's 44,038)

Red Bull's numbers are decent enough, but hardly praiseworthy. Especially for the best team in the league, with great stars, in a market that loves the game. Look, even MLS had to admit they've failed to gain any significant traction in the city. That's why they were so desperate for NY2 in the first place.

And as far as Mets fans go... still not seeing it. I hear it a lot from people who want NYCFC to fail, but the Mets fans I know in the supporters' group laugh it off. They seem pretty sanguine about their relative place in the city; if they boycotted everything with the Yankees' smell on it, they couldn't open a paper or turn on the television.

So the red bulls failed in New York and the mls' way of fixing it is putting another team in New York to take fans away from the original club and split the market, rather than marketing the one current club more it makes sense to me

[GFB]

I think, as discussed before, that the idea fans of the Mets are somehow going to be "alienated" is overblown at best. There will always be some, but any significant amount?

As much as I love the Cosmos, and will continue to buy my season tickets, I don't see how they're terribly relevant to this conversation. They'll continue to draw soccer fans looking for a lower-priced game (90% of their current single-game tickets are $35 or under), but they're a second-division club. People who want to watch the highest level of domestic soccer will be heading elsewhere. So it's not really a three-team market.

And heck, considering how little a presence Red Bulls have in the city (you're sending all your interns to give out tickets and tshirts in pubs in Hoboken instead? Seriously?), it's arguably not even a two-team town next year.

Honestly, some Mets fans might be happy that the Mets aren't involved in NYCFC management. If Detroit had a MLS team, I'd hope the team had nothing to do with the Lions.

[RyanMcD29]

I haven't chimed in on this yet but I figure I might as well. I'm a Red Bulls fan kinda by default (since the Metrostars days FWIW), even though I like to call them "Corporate Sponsorship Not Really NY Never Living Up to Expectations FC" due to their.. well.. lack of living up to expectations and annual chokejobs. Now granted, I follow the EPL more once I got more into club soccer, but I still think the MLS is a good league to watch here domestically. I even went to the Red Bulls playoff game last November and I have to say it was probably the most fun I've had at a professional sporting event in a long time (luckily, I had to catch a PATH train out so I wouldn't be home 2 am on a work night so I missed the Red Bulls capping off their annual chokejob in extra time).

Now, as some of you know from a prior thread, I'm probably in the worst situation of "I'd probably root for somebody other than RBNY, but..." I respect the hell out of you guys who root for NASL teams, but I just can't find myself to root for the Cosmos without an avenue to promotion (like supporters of lower level European clubs can at least aspire to) or it being the only team in town with two MLS franchises. That being said, given the Cosmos are here in Nassau County, I'd had jumped ship to them had they received the MLS bid.

As for NYCFC, I see where you're getting at Gothamite, but as a fan of the Mets and a fan of Tottenham Hotspur, I can't root for a team that's co-owned by my baseball team's cross-town rival and my favorite soccer club's (to an extent because Spurs aren't close to championship form) competition. I know other New Yorkers might not feel the same way, especially if NYCFC has success right off the bat, but I just can't put myself into rooting for a Yankees-Man City combo deal. Now don't get me wrong, I think NYCFC will be great for the league and could powderkeg a bit of a soccer revolution in the city. But through a partnership of two teams I root against being the ones in control, I'm pretty much stuck as a Corporate Sponsorship Never Living Up to Expectations FC guy.

As for the logo, I like it, especially the orange accents which make it pop a bit. I get the symbolism of the pentagon and the old subway tokens, but quite frankly I haven't ever run into a pentagon design for anything New York City related. Yeah, it works well with five boroughs and everything, but I think there's a lot of other symbols that work better and are more prevalent. The interlocking letters I think give off a more timeless New York feel to it if that makes any sense.

[Gothamite]

Makes sense - the pentagons are a very minor design element, really little more than a flourish. The designer was much more interested in the monogram - here's hoping the club uses it by itself as a secondary.

So the red bulls failed in New York and the mls' way of fixing it is putting another team in New York to take fans away from the original club and split the market, rather than marketing the one current club more it makes sense to me

I don't think the Red Bulls failed at all. I think they succeeded at exactly what they set out to do: attract a suburban audience. They made their choice, so MLS sought a new club interested in the city.

They're not "splitting" the market, since the pool of MLS fans in NYC is minuscule at best, even among lovers of the game. NYCFC, to succeed, will have to grow that pool significantly. Sure, they'll poach a few fans here and there. But rather than settle for a slice of a mediocre market, they want to make NYC a great market, one which they'll have virtually all to themselves.

[GFB]

I haven't chimed in on this yet but I figure I might as well. I'm a Red Bulls fan kinda by default (since the Metrostars days FWIW), even though I like to call them "Corporate Sponsorship Not Really NY Never Living Up to Expectations FC" due to their.. well.. lack of living up to expectations and annual chokejobs. Now granted, I follow the EPL more once I got more into club soccer, but I still think the MLS is a good league to watch here domestically. I even went to the Red Bulls playoff game last November and I have to say it was probably the most fun I've had at a professional sporting event in a long time (luckily, I had to catch a PATH train out so I wouldn't be home 2 am on a work night so I missed the Red Bulls capping off their annual chokejob in extra time).

Now, as some of you know from a prior thread, I'm probably in the worst situation of "I'd probably root for somebody other than RBNY, but..." I respect the hell out of you guys who root for NASL teams, but I just can't find myself to root for the Cosmos without an avenue to promotion (like supporters of lower level European clubs can at least aspire to) or it being the only team in town with two MLS franchises. That being said, given the Cosmos are here in Nassau County, I'd had jumped ship to them had they received the MLS bid.

As for NYCFC, I see where you're getting at Gothamite, but as a fan of the Mets and a fan of Tottenham Hotspur, I can't root for a team that's co-owned by my baseball team's cross-town rival and my favorite soccer club's (to an extent because Spurs aren't close to championship form) competition. I know other New Yorkers might not feel the same way, especially if NYCFC has success right off the bat, but I just can't put myself into rooting for a Yankees-Man City combo deal. Now don't get me wrong, I think NYCFC will be great for the league and could powderkeg a bit of a soccer revolution in the city. But through a partnership of two teams I root against being the ones in control, I'm pretty much stuck as a Corporate Sponsorship Never Living Up to Expectations FC guy.

As for the logo, I like it, especially the orange accents which make it pop a bit. I get the symbolism of the pentagon and the old subway tokens, but quite frankly I haven't ever run into a pentagon design for anything New York City related. Yeah, it works well with five boroughs and everything, but I think there's a lot of other symbols that work better and are more prevalent. The interlocking letters I think give off a more timeless New York feel to it if that makes any sense.

As an "educated" NY soccer fan (you follow the Premier League) what's the bigger roadblock for you? MCFC or the Yankees? It has to be Man City, right?

[JTernup]

I've weighed in on this discussion before and I'm not a New Yorker, so take it or leave it

I'm a MCFC fan, a Rapids fan and somebody who hates the Yankees. I've just recently gotten into soccer hard core and I love the MCFC & NYY connection. Baseball is my favorite sport, so the fact that a baseball team is involved regardless of the fact that I hate them is awesome. To me as a baseball fan first and foremost the NYY, NYCFC connection makes me interested in NYCFC. As a City fan that connection makes me interested in NYCFC ( it can only help MCFC on the field and their global reach).

So... My conclusion if you are a mets fan, who cares if your rival owns a soccer team. They are different sports and the connection is no more than an investment or if the red sox decided to buy stock in the packers it means nothing. The MCFC connection does mean something and as a Chelsea, united, arsenal etc fan I would be less inclined to support NYCFC. At the end of the day NYCFC is MCFC's sister club and along with Melbourne Hart they are a FAMILY of clubs. This family connection doesn't hold true of the Yankees.

[RyanMcD29]

(my tl/dr stuff)

As an "educated" NY soccer fan (you follow the Premier League) what's the bigger roadblock for you? MCFC or the Yankees? It has to be Man City, right?

Oh god I hope I didn't turn into an elitist by starting to follow the EPL to get the "educated" label haha I jest

Yeah, I'd say them being involved in the combo was the dealbreaker. Now I prefer Man City to Man U/Chelsea/Arsenal in terms of rootability, but I still think their involvement put me over the edge. I mean, I rooted for the Nets even when they were owned by the Yankees back in the day, but having two teams that are either rivals or traditional competitors (I think we all can agree MCFC is on a higher level than THFC these days) of two of my teams instead of just the one didn't leave a good taste in my mouth.

[Jer15]

I have to say all these ownership issues are so stupid.

First off, it's soccer not baseball.

Second, it's MLS not the EPL.

Personally I like Spurs from the EPL, but I am not a San Jose supporter because the 2 clubs developed a relationship.

I also didn't become more of a TFC fan (or vice-versa) with the whole Spurs/TFC advertising rights deal.

If I lived in NYC proper and liked/was interested in/was obsessed with MLS soccer I'd support NYCFC. Unless I was already a huge Red Bull supporter in which case I probably wouldn't change my allegiance.

[GFB]

I have to say all these ownership issues are so stupid.

First off, it's soccer not baseball.

Second, it's MLS not the EPL.

Personally I like Spurs from the EPL, but I am not a San Jose supporter because the 2 clubs developed a relationship.

I also didn't become more of a TFC fan (or vice-versa) with the whole Spurs/TFC advertising rights deal.

If I lived in NYC proper and liked/was interested in/was obsessed with MLS soccer I'd support NYCFC. Unless I was already a huge Red Bull supporter in which case I probably wouldn't change my allegiance.

But that's not exactly a similar scenario... Imagine if TFC was a new expansion team, only they were called Toronto Arsenal and they were joint venture owned by Arsenal and the Boston Bruins. As a Spurs supporter and (I presume) Leafs fan, wouldn't it be tougher to get on board?

Then again, this whole point may be moot 5 years from now. They may run the club as almost a completely separate entity and eventually the ownership becomes a distant focal point, or they could have Man City and Yankees viewing parties before matches and place their logos all over the stadium signage. I'd imagine the former is a much more plausible reality, but who knows at this point.

[-kj]

Oh god I hope I didn't turn into an elitist by starting to follow the EPL to get the "educated" label haha I jest

I dunno, I'd label you that due to you not being able to support an NASL team since they can't get promoted. But that's just me.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

(my tl/dr stuff)

As an "educated" NY soccer fan (you follow the Premier League) what's the bigger roadblock for you? MCFC or the Yankees? It has to be Man City, right?

Oh god I hope I didn't turn into an elitist by starting to follow the EPL to get the "educated" label haha I jest

Yeah, I'd say them being involved in the combo was the dealbreaker. Now I prefer Man City to Man U/Chelsea/Arsenal in terms of rootability, but I still think their involvement put me over the edge. I mean, I rooted for the Nets even when they were owned by the Yankees back in the day, but having two teams that are either rivals or traditional competitors (I think we all can agree MCFC is on a higher level than THFC these days) of two of my teams instead of just the one didn't leave a good taste in my mouth.

I am a former Yankee fan; I retired as a baseball fan after the 1996 season. (Today's Yankee fans don't really resemble the Yankee fans of my era; I don't feel any connection to them, nor do I wish the Yankees any success.) So the Yankees' involvment in NYCFC's ownership means nothing different to me than would the Mets' involvement.

It's important to note that rivals come in varying levels of emotional involvement. When I was a Yankee fan, I hated the Red Sox. But I didn't hate the Orioles. I still wanted to beat the Orioles, of course; but I respected them, and could even root for them in the playoffs. I didn't even really hate the Mets, except for the period between 1985 and 1988, when they dominated the news coverage, despite the Yankees having teams that were just as entertaining. Still, I didn't come up hating the Mets in the 1970s; and I didn't go out hating them in the 1990s.

If the Mets had been owners of a soccer club that debuted while I was still a Yankee fan, this probably wouldn't have been a problem for me. But I know that Met fans have a "little-guy" complex when it comes to the Yankees; they hate the Yankees more than Yankee fans of my era hated the Mets. So the Yankees' involvement in NYCFC's ownership is probably more of an issue to Met fans who pay attention to MLS than the Mets' involvement would be to Yankee fans of my era. (I make no claims about today's Yankee fans, who are obnoxious gasbags.)

For the past 10 or 11 years I have been a big Chelsea fan. During that time, Manchester United have been my team's biggest rival. Though lately it's Man City; and Chelsea and City are neck-and-neck for the title this season. Still, just as I didn't hate the Orioles, I don't hate City; I actually respect the hell out of them. (An anecdote: on Tuesday, the Manchester derby took place. It was in Chelsea's interest for United to win. But, when United conceded a goal in the first minute, I instinctively cheered, forgetting that I was supposed to be rooting for United in that game!)

The only Premiership team which I as a Chelsea fan hate is Man U. (Well, and West Ham.) The other teams that compete at Chelsea's level -- Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, and the aforementioned City -- all have my respect. (I loved watching Spurs under Harry Redknapp. They were the most entertaining team in the league then.)

If I were going to care about MLS (which, I have to admit, is extremely difficult), then the involvement of Manchester City would be absolutely no disincentive for me as a Chelsea fan. But it might be difficult for Manchester United fans (who far outnumber Chelsea fans in New York) to accept this team. Anyway, the fact is that most Chelsea fans or Man U fans in New York don't care about MLS. I don't follow the league; and I hate its single-entity policy, which represents a legalised ripoff of players. But I occasionally watch a game. I suppose that I hope NYCFC do well; the more MLS teams that do well, the more likely it will be that the league will eventually spin off its teams into independent entities, and allow them to really compete against each other, as in a real league.

So I'd say that it's reasonable to think that the involvement of the Yankees will be a problem for Met fans, and the involvement of Manchester City will be a problem for Manchester United fans. Still, that probably leaves many local soccer fans who are fans neither of the Mets nor of Manchester United.

One thing that would be kind of cool, as a way to neutralise the antipathy that Met fans would feel, would be if the team could play in Citi Field. But this is extremely unlikely, especially because Met ownership was at one point in the running for an MLS team. Most things I read indicate that NYCFC will play in Yankee Stadium.