The Cultural Significance Of Nycfc's Debut

Ferdinand Cesarano

Registered
Mar 14, 2015
196
274
63
58
New York
facebook.com
Lately it has occurred to me that NYCFC constitute the second biggest debut ever into the New York sports scene, second only to that of the Mets. Both teams immediately became culturally significant in their first seasons, despite lack of success on the field.

The baseball Giants, the Dodgers, the Yankees, the football Giants, the Rangers, and the Knicks all began before the modern culture of pro sports existed. They certainly became huge entities in the sports culture later on; their debuts, however, were not significant moments.

The Jets (Titans), the Mets, and the Nets debuted in the 1960s. The Jets briefly became a major phenomenon years later when they won the Super Bowl, while the Nets never cracked big-time stature until they moved from Jersey to Brooklyn, despite having won ABA championships and having twice made the NBA Finals. The Mets, as mentioned, were a cultural icon instantly.

The 1970s saw the debuts of the Cosmos and the Islanders. We all know that the Cosmos started small; they predate the first soccer boom in the U.S. in the same way that the Yankees and the other traditional teams predate the pro sports boom. Despite the Cosmos' eventual heights, their debut was no big deal. (Ironically, their second debut in 2013 was more significant than their first in 1970.) The Islanders' appearance was notable only in their sub-section of the New York area (Long Island), nowhere else.

In the 1980s we had the arrival of the Devils and the creation of the Generals. The Devils, like the Islanders, were hailed only in their section of the metro area (in this case northern New Jersey, and even there just barely), not area-wide. The Generals' debut caused some buzz; I'd place it third on the list behind those of the Mets and of NYCFC.

This brings us to the 1990s, and the MetroStars. Their average attendance at Giants Stadium was about 23,000 in their first season, and it plummeted from there. By comparison, the Generals' average had been 30,000 in their debut season of 1983, and it went up from there. The MetroStars made no impact on the area's sports scene; and the Red Bulls have carried on this tradition.

Already mentioned was the re-emergence of the Cosmos in 2013, a debut which I would rank behind that of Generals in terms of general (no pun intended) cultural impact on the area's pro sports scene.

This provides some context for NYCFC's remarkable debut into New York's sporting culture.
 
Last edited:
I think it will take at least 3-5 years to see how NYCFC pans out in the NYC sports culture. A better understanding will take a decade or two decades (lol, NJ).
 
NYCFC needs better marketing. Give out stickers at games, have fans place them wherever. They need to advertise the rowdy and funloving crowd in the supporter sections.

The cosmos were big because they won games despite notvreally being from NY (not counting Icahn). We're big because we're from NY. Now imagine if we start winning
 
Is it safe to assume that the MLS is banking on our success to elevate the league further? Considering we are the number one television market, and the fact that it is NYC, our team can do wonders for the league if we start winning.
 
Is it safe to assume that the MLS is banking on our success to elevate the league further? Considering we are the number one television market, and the fact that it is NYC, our team can do wonders for the league if we start winning.

In this league as in any other, having a good team in New York can only help.

What I am really hoping for is that our matchups with the Galaxy become a rivalry. The first game, with the Lampard-Gerrard subplot, will be huge.

Another thing that would help this rivalry is if Bruce Arena can be lured back home to become our next manager.
 
It is clear MLS is pushing for rivalries to develop, but I think it will be more geared towards regional teams. In any case, rivalries is a good thing that will spur the league in the positive direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CP_Scouse
It is clear MLS is pushing for rivalries to develop, but I think it will be more geared towards regional teams. In any case, rivalries is a good thing that will spur the league in the positive direction.

Yes, regional proximity is the most likely basis for a rivalry, but it isn't the only one. New York - L.A. is a natural in all sports. With the Galaxy already being the league's signature team, NYCFC now has to do its part to make the matchups meaningful. The best way would be for the two teams to meet in MLS Cup; but that ain't happening any time soon. So the Lampard-Gerrard thing could be a good way to jump-start such a rivalry, as would hiring Arena away from them.
 
Regional is the only way this team and league are going to grow. Having us as a rival to LA? Please. They've been around a lot longer and having a ton of success going for them. We should make any match against anyone along the I-95 corridor a rival, including Cosmos. There is zero reason for us not to be at Hofstra in a few weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul and CP_Scouse