Reputation issue

[Shr3kk__Wpg]

I am managing Coritiba in Brazil. My save game is in the 2026 season. I have won 9 straight Brasiliero Serie A titles, 7 of 10 Copa Du Brazil titles, 6 straight Copa Libertadores titles and I am still trailing Corinthians in terms of reputation. I use FMRTE so I can see the actual reputation numbers. Back in 2016, Corinthians had a reputation of 8250 and Coritiba had 6416. In 2021, Corinthians remained at 8250 and Coritiba was up to 8021. Right now in November of 2026, Corinthians was up to 8284 and Coritiba was at 8097. My squad has captured every title the past 5 seasons but only gained 42 points in terms of reputation. They do win their local state championship every season, but so do I. In the past 5 Copado Brazils, they finished in second. But surely I should have passed them in reputation by now.

[forameuss]

If a club has a huge lead over another in terms of reputation - particularly if that team is as huge in the country as Corinthians - then it will always be hard to catch up on them in terms of reputation. Man Utd might have been dreadful last season, but are they still arguably the most reputable club in the country? Absolutely. If someone went on a 7 title bender in England, United would still be very high rep, as they should be.

In your case, you're a lowly club (relative to Corinthians) who has achieved massive success. The problem is that that is a "non-realistic" thing to happen, so the reputation rise there has to be balanced and not just based on wins. If it was, it'd be far too easy to boost it. It could maybe be refined, but I don't think your situation is that bad. Corinthians will always be a massive club in Brazil.

[Shr3kk__Wpg]

But I am talking about a 10 year run here. If Man City won the EPL for 9 straight years, might not they overtake United in terms of reputation?

[Some Guy!]

But I am talking about a 10 year run here. If Man City won the EPL for 9 straight years, might not they overtake United in terms of reputation?

How's your stadium, facilities, finances and attendances in comparison to Corinthians? Do you sell high reputation players often? Do they sign high reputation players often? There's more to reputation than winning everything. For example, the most successful club in Australia's Hyundai A-league is Brisbane Roar, with 3 titles in the past 4 seasons. Yet most would talk about Melbourne Victory (no titles in 6 odd years) and Sydney FC (no titles in 5 odd years). Why? Because they go out and spend big, sign the big names, pack the stadiums etc.

In the game you'll see clubs get sudden, massive reputation boosts simply from being taken over by a tycoon and signing a few players (think what happened with Man City). If they're filling their stadium more, and have made some big name signings while you're financing your moves in the transfer market by selling stars, and bringing in younger players, then it's quite reasonable that they'd still be seen as "bigger".

[Johnyfooty]

Reputation and sponsor gains have always been terrible. It's one of the main grudges I have with the game when it comes to playing sandbox style and getting a really small team to go big.

[forameuss]

But I am talking about a 10 year run here. If Man City won the EPL for 9 straight years, might not they overtake United in terms of reputation?

Reputation is a purely FM-based attribute though, so it's hard to tell. But I'd say that if a club is high-rep, it will always be high-rep. I don't think you should be able to lose significant reputation, only gain it.

Of course, the question is whether reputation rises are modelled normally in game. I think they've always struggled with that.

[Some Guy!]

Reputation and sponsor gains have always been terrible. It's one of the main grudges I have with the game when it comes to playing sandbox style and getting a really small team to go big.

It's actually one of the things the game does really well, but mostly in Europe (as continental competitions appear to either be pegged or have little ability to change reputation). I've had a save where the biggest league in the World is the Hungarian League. Champions League finals between Honved and Videoton, not to mention Debrecen in the semis. Takes a long time, but it can and does happen in game.

Reputation is a purely FM-based attribute though, so it's hard to tell. But I'd say that if a club is high-rep, it will always be high-rep. I don't think you should be able to lose significant reputation, only gain it.

Of course, the question is whether reputation rises are modelled normally in game. I think they've always struggled with that.

Leeds says "Hi".

Clubs can and do lose reputation. It should end up being roughly conservative, that is, there will always be a rough number of "big clubs", with the previous ones dropping out a bit to make way.

[Johnyfooty]

It's actually one of the things the game does really well, but mostly in Europe (as continental competitions appear to either be pegged or have little ability to change reputation). I've had a save where the biggest league in the World is the Hungarian League. Champions League finals between Honved and Videoton, not to mention Debrecen in the semis. Takes a long time, but it can and does happen in game.

That is possible, yes. The league reputation has generally improved a lot.

But reputations as far as teams themselves go is still kinda bad. Same goes for sponsors, especially sponsors actually. You'd expect that after 20 years of winning the premier league of a nation and going further in the CL than any team has ever gone there, you'd have some interest in sponsors compared to the previously top teams. Nop, 20 years of that equals to your sponsorship being raised from 1/10 of what everyone else has from the start to 2-3/10.

Most notable when you start really low, like Sweden's 4th tier and going all the way up. Debrecen is an already established team for example.

[forameuss]

Leeds says "Hi".

Clubs can and do lose reputation. It should end up being roughly conservative, that is, there will always be a rough number of "big clubs", with the previous ones dropping out a bit to make way.

Have they had the sustained periods of success that a side like Man Utd have had though? They've had two periods that I can remember before it all came crashing down.

Again though, there's a separation between real life and FM in this sense, as reputation doesn't really exist in the same form. I'd argue that in an FM sense, the high rep clubs will keep their rep up unless they have a ridiculous slide. Even then, it would have to be sustained, which is unlikely in FM given how important rep is. to the core of the game.

Anyway, that's all probably besides the point, your points at least. You're complaining that your team isn't more reputable than Corinthians despite dominating Brazil over close to a decade.

You do mention in another reply that given enough time, the Hungarian league can be top. What's the difference between that and your team reaching the top? Corinthians aren't playing badly, so they won't lose fans. Your gains will be small.

[Some Guy!]

That is possible, yes. The league reputation has generally improved a lot.

But reputations as far as teams themselves go is still kinda bad. Same goes for sponsors, especially sponsors actually. You'd expect that after 20 years of winning the premier league of a nation and going further in the CL than any team has ever gone there, you'd have some interest in sponsors compared to the previously top teams. Nop, 20 years of that equals to your sponsorship being raised from 1/10 of what everyone else has from the start to 2-3/10.

Most notable when you start really low, like Sweden's 4th tier and going all the way up. Debrecen is an already established team for example.

I would think that would have to do with the supporters though. Smaller clubs will struggle to bring in the numbers needed for sponsors to justify signing big deals with a club. Particularly if you're a club that subsists on selling their stars (which can give a massive reputation hit by the way), if the fans aren't there, and the big names aren't there, then you're going to struggle with the sponsors.

If you'd taken a team from the 4th tier in Sweden, (is the league supported in the Vanilla game?) how were you attendances compared to the other teams in the league at the time?

[Some Guy!]

Have they had the sustained periods of success that a side like Man Utd have had though? They've had two periods that I can remember before it all came crashing down.

Again though, there's a separation between real life and FM in this sense, as reputation doesn't really exist in the same form. I'd argue that in an FM sense, the high rep clubs will keep their rep up unless they have a ridiculous slide. Even then, it would have to be sustained, which is unlikely in FM given how important rep is. to the core of the game.

Anyway, that's all probably besides the point, your points at least. You're complaining that your team isn't more reputable than Corinthians despite dominating Brazil over close to a decade.

You do mention in another reply that given enough time, the Hungarian league can be top. What's the difference between that and your team reaching the top? Corinthians aren't playing badly, so they won't lose fans. Your gains will be small.

For Leeds, the 60-70s, and late 80s through 90s.

I've seen plenty of teams collapse in FM. It can and does happen. I've seen leagues collapse reputation wise as well (as Italy has suffered), and league rise unexpectedly.

I'm not the one complaining by the way. I think you've mixed myself and Shr3kk__Wpg up there.

[Johnyfooty]

I would think that would have to do with the supporters though. Smaller clubs will struggle to bring in the numbers needed for sponsors to justify signing big deals with a club. Particularly if you're a club that subsists on selling their stars (which can give a massive reputation hit by the way), if the fans aren't there, and the big names aren't there, then you're going to struggle with the sponsors.

If you'd taken a team from the 4th tier in Sweden, (is the league supported in the Vanilla game?) how were you attendances compared to the other teams in the league at the time?

Yes, it is originally supported.

And the attendances were equally awful when not playing against teams that have pre-established attendances. After 20 years I still wouldn't fill more than 1/3 of my stadium when not playing against the big teams of the country (AIK, Malmo, etc) or in a european fixture.

The increases are just really, really small. And that's ok and realistic in the short-term, but there is no "snowball" factor or hype.

Your whole "player" argument makes sense, but then why do the other teams get to keep their 800K sponsors when they haven't been able to produce any good players for the past 10 years, while I'm busy getting through the CL group stages and still having a 90-100K sponsorship deal.

Meanwhile though, player wages rising normally, to the point where 2 seasons without CL group stages would mean my demise because I'd have no other sources of revenue capable of sustaining my team.

[Sikker]

Yes, it is originally supported.

And the attendances were equally awful when not playing against teams that have pre-established attendances. After 20 years I still wouldn't fill more than 1/3 of my stadium when not playing against the big teams of the country (AIK, Malmo, etc) or in a european fixture.

The increases are just really, really small. And that's ok and realistic in the short-term, but there is no "snowball" factor or hype.

Your whole "player" argument makes sense, but then why do the other teams get to keep their 800K sponsors when they haven't been able to produce any good players for the past 10 years, while I'm busy getting through the CL group stages and still having a 90-100K sponsorship deal.

Meanwhile though, player wages rising normally, to the point where 2 seasons without CL group stages would mean my demise because I'd have no other sources of revenue capable of sustaining my team.

That's pretty much how Scandinavian football works. A season or two without success and you need to sell out.

Some teams even have to sell out when they suddenly do have success, because players wants to leave. And then these teams often face several seasons of decline.

[forameuss]

For Leeds, the 60-70s, and late 80s through 90s.

I've seen plenty of teams collapse in FM. It can and does happen. I've seen leagues collapse reputation wise as well (as Italy has suffered), and league rise unexpectedly.

I'm not the one complaining by the way. I think you've mixed myself and Shr3kk__Wpg up there.

Yeah, you're right. My mistake, assumed it was the OP who replied.

Yeah, it definitely does happen, but not too often. But then it doesn't happen that often in real life either. It's going to be more difficult in FM the higher the club rep is to start with, especially if they go down to an unplayable league, as rep trumps all. That was more my point.

As for Leeds, I was thinking about the Don Revie days, then their mini purple patch to the Champions League semi finals. But then I don't know that much about Leeds.

[Johnyfooty]

That's pretty much how Scandinavian football works. A season or two without success and you need to sell out.

Some teams even have to sell out when they suddenly do have success, because players wants to leave. And then these teams often face several seasons of decline.

Ye, that's all fine. No objections there.

My sponsorship still being in the 100K when every other team still has 800K, the 2nd lowest being 500K isn't.

When the average is around 600K and after 20 years in the premier I'm still in 100K, growth is relatively slow. 20 years means I've already established my place in there.

I didn't ask for Man. Un. levels of sponsorships obviously, but ~400K would at least make more sense.

And attendances weren't any different in that regard.

[Some Guy!]

Ye, that's all fine. No objections there.

My sponsorship still being in the 100K when every other team still has 800K, the 2nd lowest being 500K isn't.

When the average is around 600K and after 20 years in the premier I'm still in 100K, growth is relatively slow. 20 years means I've already established my place in there.

I didn't ask for Man. Un. levels of sponsorships obviously, but ~400K would at least make more sense.

And attendances weren't any different in that regard.

What is you average attendance compared to their's?

[Johnyfooty]

What is you average attendance compared to their's?

Not entirely relevant, since my average attendance includes fixtures with them, so they boost it for me.

Since most smaller teams have small stadiums, I would still be on ~1600/2500. With the sell outs being done when playing against them.

Home games in the cup against smaller teams would still have really low attendances, around 400-500(compared to 100-150 when starting the game), while they were still having attendances in the thousands when playing against the same low profile teams in the cup.

I think the main problem is that serious gains only happen substantially when you actually win something, thus my team going through the CL group stages once and always being there didn't mean much. The only things I won would be the swedish league and cup, which aren't that high profile. (especially the cup, it has abysmal rep)

Maybe I should try dropping into europe league and winning that instead on my future playthroughs when i'm in a similar situation and see how that plays out.

[Sikker]

But AIK, Göteborg and Malmö are all teams that have a larger population/fanbase and as such will have more attention. In return more sponsors will be attracted. In Denmark a club like Brøndby have been in decline for a decade almost getting relegated one season. Still they have largest or 2nd largest fanbase. They have an easier time recruiting sponsors and recruiting people that wants to put money into the club.

If you manage a small club it takes time to get a fanbase. It took Brøndby almost 30 years to get the largest fanbase in Denmark. And even though they have been less than successful the last decade they're still up there and attract a lot of attention. And attention is a huge parameter for sponsors. /Edit: and retaining/gaining fans

[Johnyfooty]

But AIK, Göteborg and Malmö are all teams that have a larger population/fanbase and as such will have more attention. In return more sponsors will be attracted. In Denmark a club like Brøndby have been in decline for a decade almost getting relegated one season. Still they have largest or 2nd largest fanbase. They have an easier time recruiting sponsors and recruiting people that wants to put money into the club.

If you manage a small club it takes time to get a fanbase. It took Brøndby almost 30 years to get the largest fanbase in Denmark. And even though they have been less than successful the last decade they're still up there and attract a lot of attention. And attention is a huge parameter for sponsors.

30 years to get the largest fanbase in Denmark.

I had completed 2/3 of that and I would still have 3d tier fan-base.

See the problem there?

I don't expect to have the MOST, surely AIK and co. would still have more, solely due to their history in being the top, but I'd at least expect to at least touch the average. Not even close to that.

You assume that I'm asking for an extreme swing to my favor. No, I'm asking that I just don't find myself in the exact opposite side of the scale when it comes to extremities, a normal average, instead of still having no interest, no fan base, no sponsors whatsoever.

With that growth rate, I'd require 200 years before I find myself have the same sponsorships. More for having the same attendances. That's a bit extreme.

[Sikker]

30 years to get the largest fanbase in Denmark.

I had completed 2/3 of that and I would still have 3d tier fan-base.

See the problem there?

I don't expect to have the MOST, surely AIK and co. would still have more, solely due to their history in being the top, but I'd at least expect to at least touch the average. Not even close to that.

You assume that I'm asking for an extreme swing to my favor. No, I'm asking that I just don't find myself in the exact opposite side of the scale when it comes to extremities, a normal average, instead of still having no interest, no fan base, no sponsors whatsoever.

With that growth rate, I'd require 200 years before I find myself have the same sponsorships. More for having the same attendances. That's a bit extreme.

What team do you manage? If it's in some desert Swedish region you'll never get a high attendance.

In the case of Brøndby not only the success they had on the field made the club popular. Also the chairman and the way the club behaved in general in the 80's had a huge saying. They were first-movers in a lot of areas. And that can't really be portrayed in FM.

[Some Guy!]

30 years to get the largest fanbase in Denmark.

I had completed 2/3 of that and I would still have 3d tier fan-base.

See the problem there?

I don't expect to have the MOST, surely AIK and co. would still have more, solely due to their history in being the top, but I'd at least expect to at least touch the average. Not even close to that.

You assume that I'm asking for an extreme swing to my favor. No, I'm asking that I just don't find myself in the exact opposite side of the scale when it comes to extremities, a normal average, instead of still having no interest, no fan base, no sponsors whatsoever.

With that growth rate, I'd require 200 years before I find myself have the same sponsorships. More for having the same attendances. That's a bit extreme.

Keep in mind there are a lot of other factors that go into how quickly support will grow. Which club is it, where is it based? Is it a fashionable place?

The key for sponsorship money is the triad of success, players and supporters. If you're missing any of the three, it's going to hurt your chances. This is something that appears in reality too. Just having the trophies isn't going to change anything, you need the trophies, the players (the most marketable aren't always the "best") and the bums on seats. If you want serious sponsorship you'd need to be looking at 10k+ at the very least. If you're talking about attendance in the ~1600 region (a staggering tenth of AIK current average attendance), then I'm not surprised that you're struggling to get to their level of sponsorship.

[Johnyfooty]

What team do you manage? If it's in some desert Swedish region you'll never get a high attendance.

In the case of Brøndby not only the success they had on the field made the club popular. Also the chairman and the way the club behaved in general in the 80's had a huge saying. They were first-movers in a lot of areas. And that can't really be portrayed in FM.

Always small ones and I can understand the region factor. I think I did discuss it with mods on a previous version as well.

But that still leaves sponsorships hanging, which are irrelevant to that, since it's mostly advertising interest.

[Some Guy!]

Always small ones and I can understand the region factor. I think I did discuss it with mods on a previous version as well.

But that still leaves sponsorships hanging, which are irrelevant to that, since it's mostly advertising interest.

The number of fans is one of the most important things in terms of sponsorship. The only time it will start to become less important is if you're a global brand, and at that point you're talking Champions League challengers, not a team that consistently makes the group stage.

What benefit is there to sponsor a team that pulls in ~1500 in a small village, when they can sponsor a team that could have 50,000 people fill out their stadium?

The problem seems to be that the club you're at just isn't able to pull the kind of support to build a solid case to sell to the sponsors.

[Johnyfooty]

The number of fans is one of the most important things in terms of sponsorship. The only time it will start to become less important is if you're a global brand, and at that point you're talking Champions League challengers, not a team that consistently makes the group stage.

What benefit is there to sponsor a team that pulls in ~1500 in a small village, when they can sponsor a team that could have 50,000 people fill out their stadium?

The problem seems to be that the club you're at just isn't able to pull the kind of support to build a solid case to sell to the sponsors.

Erm...

The fact that the 1500 village team is being consistently shown in TV in the CL?

That sounds like an important factor to me, we aren't exactly in the 50s where the sponsors are local businesses. A sports brand for example doesn't care about the 1500 of the village OR the 50.000 of a city. They care about the millions of the TV broadcasts.

[Sikker]

Erm...

The fact that the 1500 village team is being consistently shown in TV in the CL?

That sounds like an important factor to me, we aren't exactly in the 50s where the sponsors are local businesses. A sports brand for example doesn't care about the 1500 of the village OR the 50.000 of a city. They care about the millions of the TV broadcasts.

Sponsors care very much about it. If only 1500 people find the club interesting then why waste lots of money? Only few people watch the game - also on the TV. People prefer to watch that other game with the popular team that are also shown in the tv at the same time.

[Johnyfooty]

Sponsors care very much about it. If only 1500 people find the club interesting then why waste lots of money? Only few people watch the game - also on the TV. People prefer to watch that other game with the popular team that are also shown in the tv at the same time.

Better keep giving that money to the teams that get no TV time to begin with then.

I mean, it's perfectly normal that the 2K attendance, middle ground premier team that hasn't been out of Sweden ever still has 300-400K sponsor money while I'm still sitting at 100K.

[Sikker]

Better keep giving that money to the teams that get no TV time to begin with then.

I mean, it's perfectly normal that the 2K attendance, middle ground premier team that hasn't been out of Sweden ever still has 300-400K sponsor money while I'm still sitting at 100K.

I'm not saying the way FM portrays it is perfect. But I just can't see how a small club in the middle of nowhere (exaggerating) can ever attract the same sponsor deals nor size of attendance as big city clubs. No matter the success the small team may have (again exaggerating a bit).

An example: Brøndby (again) even in the season they were battling against relegation they where the most popular team in tv as well on the stands.

If you can't attract people sponsors will stay away. Your team can't attract attention so sponsors stay away. Your games might be shown on tv but what does it matter if people prefer to watch another game?

[Some Guy!]

Erm...

The fact that the 1500 village team is being consistently shown in TV in the CL?

That sounds like an important factor to me, we aren't exactly in the 50s where the sponsors are local businesses. A sports brand for example doesn't care about the 1500 of the village OR the 50.000 of a city. They care about the millions of the TV broadcasts.

Simply being in the Champions League isn't going to be that much of a boost to the sponsorships though. Compared to the length of the entire season it's not a great deal, and the TV audience for smaller Champions League clashes isn't going to be that great. If you were talking about making the semis or final consistently, with World Superstars lining your team, that's one thing. But simply being a consistent team, making the Champions League group stages isn't going to be enough to overturn having 1500 attendances the vast majority of the time. The sponsors will still have better options.

[Some Guy!]

Better keep giving that money to the teams that get no TV time to begin with then.

I mean, it's perfectly normal that the 2K attendance, middle ground premier team that hasn't been out of Sweden ever still has 300-400K sponsor money while I'm still sitting at 100K.

Names, images, etc.?

If there are teams of similar average attendances, stadiums and such, that aren't performing as well getting better deals, that's another story.

[Johnyfooty]

I'm not saying the way FM portrays it is perfect. But I just can't see how a small club in the middle of nowhere (exaggerating) can ever attract the same sponsor deals nor size of attendance as big city clubs. No matter the success the small team may have (again exaggerating a bit).

An example: Brøndby (again) even in the season they were battling against relegation they where the most popular team in tv as well on the stands.

If you can't attract people sponsors will stay away. Your team can't attract attention so sponsors stay away. Your games might be shown on tv but what does it matter if people prefer to watch another game?

Then all the other teams should also see an eventual decline, because what does it matter if noone watches them ever?

But they don't, as long as they don't demote, they stay static and very close to their starting values.

There's many variables, that much we can agree, but surely this isn't exactly close to realism either. An intercontinental reputation team getting less sponsorship deals than a borderline national one. (i still haven't managed worldwide rep, who knows.)

In general, increases and declines in sponsorhips are quite small and fairly static for anything other than demotions and I think there's a lot of way to go in that regard. At least some hype factor could be introduced to introduce some fame snowballing.

[Some Guy!]

Then all the other teams should also see an eventual decline, because what does it matter if noone watches them ever?

But they don't, as long as they don't demote, they stay static and very close to their starting values.

There's many variables, that much we can agree, but surely this isn't exactly close to realism either. An intercontinental reputation team getting less sponsorship deals than a borderline national one. (i still haven't managed worldwide rep, who knows.)

In general, increases and declines in sponsorhips are quite small and fairly static for anything other than demotions and I think there's a lot of way to go in that regard. At least some hype factor could be introduced to introduce some fame snowballing.

I got an increase of about 30%+ in my sponsorships for this season alone. It does change.

Unless you can provide us with some specifics (screenshots of the league average attendances, sponsorships and such that we can digest a bit), then it does seem that this is a problem with you not gaining more fans.

[Johnyfooty]

I got an increase of about 30%+ in my sponsorships for this season alone. It does change.

Unless you can provide us with some specifics (screenshots of the league average attendances, sponsorships and such that we can digest a bit), then it does seem that this is a problem with you not gaining more fans.

Sadly, that save file is corrupted.

I will bring up the matter later this year as I usually do when I start my 2nd long-term save. But right now I don't have the time to reproduce such a long run.

May I ask your league? From what I've seen(in the little time i've spend in them), the major leagues generally work better in that regard, namely EPL, german, etc.

[Some Guy!]

Sadly, that save file is corrupted.

I will bring up the matter later this year as I usually do when I start my 2nd long-term save. But right now I don't have the time to reproduce such a long run.

May I ask your league? From what I've seen(in the little time i've spend in them), the major leagues generally work better in that regard, namely EPL, german, etc.

You don't keep backups?

Good luck on your second long term save for FM15.

[Johnyfooty]

You don't keep backups?

Good luck on your second long term save for FM15.

My first save is always on borderline higher than adviced player count, which eventually overflows and goes unplayable, at which point I delete it. Usually happens around xmass time with my playtimes, which makes sure that I won't have a save file to invest to when my semester ends and I have to start studying for exams. It's like a method to control my lack of self-control.

[Sikker]

Then all the other teams should also see an eventual decline, because what does it matter if noone watches them ever?

But they don't, as long as they don't demote, they stay static and very close to their starting values.

There's many variables, that much we can agree, but surely this isn't exactly close to realism either. An intercontinental reputation team getting less sponsorship deals than a borderline national one. (i still haven't managed worldwide rep, who knows.)

In general, increases and declines in sponsorhips are quite small and fairly static for anything other than demotions and I think there's a lot of way to go in that regard. At least some hype factor could be introduced to introduce some fame snowballing.

The bold part I don't get. The other teams fanbase is static even though they never win? Or have I missed something? My examples with Brøndby show that winning isn't everything to get a high fanbase and as a result hereof higher sponsorship deals.

Teams that demote may find that their fanbase lowers. But quite often these fans go to no other club and return when the club promotes. So yes, fanbase is generally very static.

Disclaimer: In this thread I'm only talking about Scandinavian clubs...

[Johnyfooty]

The bold part I don't get. The other teams fanbase is static even though they never win? Or have I missed something? My examples with Brøndby show that winning isn't everything to get a high fanbase and as a result hereof higher sponsorship deals.

Teams that demote may find that their fanbase lowers. But quite often these fans go to no other club and return when the club promotes. So yes, fanbase is generally very static.

Disclaimer: In this thread I'm only talking about Scandinavian clubs...

Well, it might be more prevalent in Sweden.

I did have a better time when I tried Norway back in F13 to be fair. (although the work permits were annoying, but that's irrelevant to growth.)

Have never tried Finland or Denmark.

Maybe I should toy with the editor a little when I'm to start again and see the parameters with the home cities, etc.

[Sikker]

Well, it might be more prevalent in Sweden.

I did have a better time when I tried Norway back in F13 to be fair. (although the work permits were annoying, but that's irrelevant to growth.)

Have never tried Finland or Denmark.

Maybe I should toy with the editor a little when I'm to start again and see the parameters with the home cities, etc.

If you pick a small club from the capital/biggest city (usually there are several clubs in a capital) and have lots of prolonged success then you should see your fanbase grow followed by better sponsorship deals.

In FM12 I think it was, I took Brøndby to new hights and won the champions league six times in a row. I maxed out the fanbase and had 45K to almost all games. In the beginning I had 15-20K as I remember. The sponsorship deals got better but could in no way compare to champions league money and player sales.

[Johnyfooty]

If you pick a small club from the capital/biggest city (usually there are several clubs in a capital) and have lots of prolonged success then you should see your fanbase grow followed by better sponsorship deals.

In FM12 I think it was, I took Brøndby to new hights and won the champions league six times in a row. I maxed out the fanbase and had 45K to almost all games. In the beginning I had 15-20K as I remember. The sponsorship deals got better but could in no way compare to champions league money and player sales.

I'll try to make a small pick from a bigger city next time and see how it goes.

[Shr3kk__Wpg]

I am a club with the biggest star in Brazil. One if my strikers has won the Ballon D'Or 5 straight years. I do sell most star players after a couple of seasons, when their market value is high. I have a 45000 seat stadium so always in the top 5 in attendance. Corinthians signs some players I guess. I spend my transfer money on young players.

[Some Guy!]

I am a club with the biggest star in Brazil. One if my strikers has won the Ballon D'Or 5 straight years. I do sell most star players after a couple of seasons, when their market value is high. I have a 45000 seat stadium so always in the top 5 in attendance. Corinthians signs some players I guess. I spend my transfer money on young players.

Hang on...

I do sell most star players after a couple of seasons, when their market value is high.

This is likely why your reputation has remained below Corinthians. You aren't getting as many bums on seats, and you're selling many of your big names.

[dddddd]

I agree with shr 3kk - I'm managing spurs and I've won the prem the last 7 years and the CL the last 4 - I get that teams like Barcelona, Bayern etc take some beating on the rep front but I've still got the likes of Wolfsburg ahead of me, even though they've won absolutely nowt Real Sociedad also ahead of me - again won nothing. That just cannot be right. I finally got past a few after the last CL win but now another week passes and I've dropped back below Wolfsburg and Gelsenkirchen even though nothing has happened in that week (on players in or out and its summer so no games.

This part of the game always worked fine before but this cannot be right surely.

Should add as well there are some weird ones in there - 2 places below me with a worldwide rep - Espanyol - even though they've again won nothing and don't qualify for any more than euro league and one of my strikers costs more than their entire team...it's just not right - Espanyol don't even have a big reputation in Barcelona...

[dddddd]

is anyone looking at this reputation issue? Few more seasons past and I've won the prem the last 1 years running, the CL 7 years running and about 75% of my squad has worldwide reputation and despite winning everything last season except the league cup my position in the reputation rankings has now GONE DOWN - Espanyol have now overtaken me even though their only success in the last 15 years is a final of the spanish cup. Wolfsburg gone past me now too - this is ridiculous.

Surely after this success I should only have Real Madrid and maybe Barcelona ahead of me.

[Cougar2010]

Facilities, players (Both ability & rep), money etc etc etc all count towards reputation.

Its not just about how much you've won.

SI may be looking at how its calculated but honestly is it really that important?

[Georgik]

This topic saved me for making another one.

I have the same problem in my Liverpool save.

Managed to win 4 titles in a row, in 6 years, and 4 ucls and my club's reputation didn't change so much as i'm on par with Wolfsburg, Benfica or Valencia (even if they didn't won a single trophy so far), and some of my players are demanding to leave for bigger clubs like Bayern, Real or Barca, even though i'm currently the biggest in terms of trophies and such. It's mind boggling to say the least.

[forameuss]

This topic saved me for making another one.

I have the same problem in my Liverpool save.

Managed to win 4 titles in a row, in 6 years, and 4 ucls and my club's reputation didn't change so much as i'm on par with Wolfsburg, Benfica or Valencia (even if they didn't won a single trophy so far), and some of my players are demanding to leave for bigger clubs like Bayern, Real or Barca, even though i'm currently the biggest in terms of trophies and such. It's mind boggling to say the least.

Then you clearly haven't read the rest of the topic. Trophies aren't the be all and end all. Bayern, Real and Barca are probably always going to bigger reputation, no matter what. Because they're a bigger club. Nothing mind-boggling about it.

[Georgik]

Then you clearly haven't read the rest of the topic. Trophies aren't the be all and end all. Bayern, Real and Barca are probably always going to bigger reputation, no matter what. Because they're a bigger club. Nothing mind-boggling about it.

Even if now i'm the record holder for the UCL ? Won it 6 times with Lpool, 11 times in total. Surely with these many trophies my club's reputation should be better than that of Wolfsburg, Benfica or Valencia ?

[Guest]

Do you have their respective leagues active?

Are you the type of manager who focuses their transfer dealings on buying young hot prospects & selling them on to allow space for the next batch of youngsters?

Have you kept old save points so that you can accurately track rep development?

[Georgik]

Do you have their respective leagues active?

Are you the type of manager who focuses their transfer dealings on buying young hot prospects & selling them on to allow space for the next batch of youngsters?

Have you kept old save points so that you can accurately track rep development?

Didn't kept so many old save points, i have some, but i can tell you that the reputation raises very very slowly, if at all.

I did buy young prospects, but also i've bought some settled players like Depay, Mustafi, Alaba, Carvajal or Bartra. In the last 2 seasons i didn't buy any players though, because i didn't need to, i have a fantastic squad which keeps on winning.

[Guest]

What about my first question?

[Georgik]

What about my first question?

Yes, i have Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain and Holland loaded up, but not Portugal.