A few simple facts before we jump in. The team probably already has things ready to go in Newport, and we know that because they have told us as much. The team would also prefer the team to be in Cincinnati, because they have told us that, too. And they are probably shopping the deal they already have in Newport to Cincinnati and Hamilton County; that is a guess by me. Which makes me think that if nothing changes between now and November, and MLS asks FC Cincinnati if they can build a stadium if they get invited, the team will say “yup, on the banks of the mighty licking river”. But that conversation is not nearly as much fun to have, because everything is laid out and there is nothing to get mad about. So how about we get mad about stadiums eh?

Now, I have to be careful with this post because I am writing this Blog for the Pride, a supporters group for FC Cincinnati, with hundreds of members. If I take a bold stance on the stadium debate here (Camp Washington or bust!), I risk misrepresenting the organization and its many members who hold many different views. So this blog will not be about Kentucky being the worst state in the union (that would be Idaho; they know what they did), nor is it a treatise on why all public dollars should go to the billionaires with the coolest new toys (it should go to the millionaires, obviously). This is about calling about bad arguments surrounding what should be a healthy and rational civic debate.

In the immortal words of Daenerys Targaryen, “Shall we begin?”

Bad Argument #1: FC Cincinnati should stay in Nippert

Argued by: Hamilton County Commissioner and first result back when searching “what does the treasurer of a small baptist church in Clarksville, OH in 1987’s face look like?” Todd Portune

Short Answer: FC Cincinnati does not own Nippert Stadium

Longer Answer: MLS does not want a team to be renting their stadium, they need to own a stadium. For some teams like Seattle, Atlanta, or NYCFC, their ownership groups also own the non-soccer stadiums those teams play in. But in most cases, this means the ownership group will be building a new stadium, a “soccer-specific-stadium”. Building a soccer stadium allows the team to have a proper home, control their scheduling, allow for the best sight-lines, provide soccer amenities, and support the club’s offices. But most importantly, owning your own stadium maximizes the profitability of the stadium for the soccer team. And this is where Nippert fails for FC Cincinnati's purposes. FC Cincinnati cannot do the following at Nippert, and could do at their own stadium: sell the naming rights to the stadium. Collect full parking fees. Receive full revenue from concessions, tickets, boxes, club seats. Sell advertising signage around the stadium. Have their own presenting partners. Sell permanent “on-field” signage. Sign concession sponsorship and partnerships with long-term contracts. Raise additional revenue during the off-season by hold concerts, hosting friendlies, and host high school and college sports that would pay a fee to use the facility. That is a lot of money left on the table for the team. And while FCC might have an agreeable deal with UC in place now, that is not guaranteed to be the case forever.

And that does not take into account a few more things like UC signage, UC getting priority scheduling, having to move the coach’s office when UC football starts up, having to move practices when UC football wants to practice, not having enough toilets during games, not have great sight-lines in the supporters section, and having to pay rent. All of this points to the main problem for MLS: the teams need to control their stadiums completely. What happens when UC ends up in the Big 12 or ACC? You think a big time college program is going to like having their stadium completely stripped of all mention of the school when recruits are walking around campus? There is a reason why FC Cincinnati is on the road for most of the end of the year, UC football. What happens when we join MLS and our playoff run goes through November and into mid December? You think MLS wants their teams playing on football lines or dates being moved at the last second because ESPN flexed a UC football game? It will not work, it is not worth the risk for MLS. Especially when eleven other cities are offering up their own stadium solutions to join MLS. MLS has lost three teams in its history, all three did not own their stadiums. They will not make the same mistake again. Nor should they.