Major League Soccer unveils new logo

[CS85]

I like it. It's clean, simple, and versatile.

[GeauxColonels]

Hmm.

Not as bad as I feared, but too simple, I think. The old one was too literal, but this is too abstract.

And I'd rather have the NYCFC version use navy and orange; the sky blue half is going to disappear against the sky blue shirt. At least the Galaxy's patch is contrasting.

Initially, I wasn't a fan of it. But after seeing the team-specific versions and this image, I've changed my mind. Although, I would have liked to see something in the bottom half also.

[hawk36]

Huge kudos to MLS. Better than I could have expected. Simple, sharp, works well with all other team brands. Well done and great use of restraint and not bowing to the trend to overdesign.

[kewp80]

Hmm.

Not as bad as I feared, but too simple, I think. The old one was too literal, but this is too abstract.

And I'd rather have the NYCFC version use navy and orange; the sky blue half is going to disappear against the sky blue shirt. At least the Galaxy's patch is contrasting.

Initially, I wasn't a fan of it. But after seeing the team-specific versions and this image, I've changed my mind.

Agreed. At first I was asking "someone really got payed good money for this?", but seeing it applied is making me like it much more. Just goes to show you a lot of times simple is the best way to go. I also agree that Nike's explanation for all the elements is pretty reaching, but whatever.

[GFB]

I would've liked the Maple Leaf instead of the stars for the Canadien teams.

Yeah, but stars have long been associated with soccer and representation (usually, championships). Compared to any other sport, there's actually some historical precedence for it.

A few major problems with this, IMO

-- The trend in MLS logos, as well as soccer crests, is to have a shield like this. It's too close to the USMNT logo, as well as similar to many of the logos in the league, so when re-colored it's almost confusing.

-- Maybe I'm ignorant for now understanding the three stars, but when combined with the corporate red and blue it looks like something specifically made for a team based out of Tennessee

-- The base design has WAY too much negative white space

-- The extension of the line coming out of the logo doesn't make any sense. If it's supposed to be a sword and shield type deal okay, maybe I get it...

-- The gradients in the base logo are TERRIBLE. They are useless and distracting, and as we've seen, many teams with gradient logos have to include a non-gradient version that ends up being used more anyway.

Overall, the league needed a rebrand...actually, pretty badly...so why did they only spend 10 minutes in Illustrator, throwing some shapes together, and call it a day?

Come on now. Realistically, any time a logo is unveiled that falls to the minimalistic side of design, it's going to have the look of something that was easy to put together... that's just the nature of a simple design. That doesn't necessarily mean that the logo was rushed or thrown together on a whim.

I have my own problems with the design choices (some of which you mentioned), but I wouldn't say this was "throwing some shapes together."

[BlazerBlaze]

NYCFC Needs an orange boarder.RSL and OCSC looks amazing. I think they look better with double boarders.

Only thing I don't like is the font for MLS

[GFB]

There's no doubt that flexibility was one of the biggest factors for the redesign (you can tell by the one-color version of the old logo that has been predominantly used for the last 2-3 years by the MLS), but if you're going to make a mark that is going to change for each team, you could have done a lot more in terms of brand consistency (some versions have single outlines, while other teams use a double outline) and team customization... For example, dissecting the blank second quadrant into vertical sections representing the number of MLS Cups your franchise has won (DC United would have 4 vertical shapes making up that lower section, San Jose would have 2, Columbus would have solid gold, and it would remain blank white if your franchise hasn't won one yet). The more successful your team is, the more decorated your logo is.

EDIT: Quick mock-up:

[Berlin Wall]

Doesn't look so out of place now.

[ohryan]

"The second half is an open white space that brings you in and out of the MLS world."

What does this even mean?

It means there is plenty of room for a corporate sponsor.

[GeauxColonels]

Only thing I don't like is the font for MLS

Doing a search on WhattheFont...it appears that the font is part of the DIN Next family.....which I would think was deliberate given the #MLSNext campaign.

[29texan]

Doesn't look so out of place now.

'cept for the Hockey League.

But then again, they've always been the one "out of place".

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The more I look at it, the more the gradient bugs me.

Also, they really should have swapped the red/white on the Red Bulls shield.

Even still, I think MLS did a great job. They're slowly building themselves into a legit league. The new logo isn't a cure-all, but it's a nice step.

[GeauxColonels]

The more I look at it, the more the gradient bugs me.

Yeah, but there's a flat version of the logo as well that will probably end up getting the use on merchandise and in other physical applications.

[crashcarson15]

Also, they really should have swapped the red/white on the Red Bulls shield.

Disagree. Every other team has the darker color on top and lighter on bottom. That would've thrown that off. I'd prefer it to be closer to the "league logo" than have that.

[sonny]

I like it. It's got staying power

[Gothamite]

some versions have single outlines, while other teams use a double outline

That's actually not true. All of the team versions have a keyline around the logo, you just aren't seeing it because sometimes that keyline is white.

See here:

The white background shows off most of the keylines. You can tell that the Impact, Red Bull and Whitecap versions use white by comparing with the graphic on team-colored backgrounds:

I actually like that. You don't always need contrasting keylines; sometimes it's good to let those blend into the background. I'm reminded of the NYCFC logo, which was originally given a white border on dark backgrounds like this backstop wall at Yankee Stadium:

Before somebody realized that was unnecessary clutter and the badge looked much better without it.

[taantumus]

A few major problems with this, IMO

-- The trend in MLS logos, as well as soccer crests, is to have a shield like this. It's too close to the USMNT logo, as well as similar to many of the logos in the league, so when re-colored it's almost confusing.

-- Maybe I'm ignorant for now understanding the three stars, but when combined with the corporate red and blue it looks like something specifically made for a team based out of Tennessee

-- The base design has WAY too much negative white space

-- The extension of the line coming out of the logo doesn't make any sense. If it's supposed to be a sword and shield type deal okay, maybe I get it...

-- The gradients in the base logo are TERRIBLE. They are useless and distracting, and as we've seen, many teams with gradient logos have to include a non-gradient version that ends up being used more anyway.

It's supposed to be part of the center circle, only at an angle.

[Mingjai]

While I think the "second half" seems to be missing something, I do like how the simple design fits well with the general design aesthetic of the league. In particular, I like how the team colored variants don't overwhelm the respective club's crest when placed in close proximity.

[TaylorMade]

Am I the only one thinks the little TM sticks out like a sore thumb?

[daniel75]

Am I the only one thinks the little TM sticks out like a sore thumb?

i agree, but so does that unnecessary extended line.