Jump to content

Major League Soccer unveils new logo


Gothamite

Recommended Posts

There's a really weird "rooting for commerce" thing going on here. Hoping that the league sells the rights to its own name is the kind of thing no American sports fan should ever be doing.

Yeah, I don't get that either. Gods know that the Etihad logo will be enough to keep me from picking up an NYCFC shirt, no matter how big a fan I am.

There were some MLS supporters who advocated shirt sponsors in those early days, because the clubs had filled the space with their hideous wordmarks.

MetroStarsHSS0102.gif

IMG_0008.jpgvalderrama.jpg

It was the worst of both worlds - ugly but not even revenue-generating. So some fans thought it would be better to sell the ad space. I didn't agree, but I understood where they were coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wonder if the way to go would have been hockey-style centered crests. Wordmarks on soccer shirts don't look right, especially not when they're products of 1990s expansion-team sensibilities. Like, why does the Tampa Bay Mutiny look like it's supposed to be a hostile takeover of CompuServe?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the clamoring-for-sponsorship by MLS fans a few years back came about because

a.) they realized it would be a revenue stream to league/teams that, especially at that point, needed it for survival far worse than say the modern NBA does

b.) a certain degree of "Europe does it so we need to also" legitimacy seeking.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the clamoring-for-sponsorship by MLS fans a few years back came about because

a.) they realized it would be a revenue stream to league/teams that, especially at that point, needed it for survival far worse than say the modern NBA does

b.) a certain degree of "Europe does it so we need to also" legitimacy seeking.

This has been a driving force in a lot of the moves MLS teams have done whether it be sponsors on the kits or rebranding. I mean Sporting KC? Wizards was such a unique and awesome name. If they wanted to make it sound more "European" I think Wizards KC would of been a nice subtle touch while keeping it unique. Obviously they were trying to appeal to the soccer traditionalist fans in the U.S. who were following the EPL (got it right this time :D), La Liga, etc.

Also, just to be clear, I am in no way advocating corporatization(sp?) of sports or sponsors on soccer shirts at all with my earlier question. Was just putting it out there for the sake of discussion. Hell if I had my way I would say slap a number on the front like the international teams do and call it a day. That would be the best option IMO.

I could say more about the paradoxes between graphic design, corporatism, and sports branding, but I don't want to type that much right now, and stay on topic.

Cardinals -- Rams -- Blues -- Tigers -- Liverpool

Check out my music!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a really weird "rooting for commerce" thing going on here. Hoping that the league sells the rights to its own name is the kind of thing no American sports fan should ever be doing.

Yeah, I don't get that either. Gods know that the Etihad logo will be enough to keep me from picking up an NYCFC shirt, no matter how big a fan I am.

There were some MLS supporters who advocated shirt sponsors in those early days, because the clubs had filled the space with their hideous wordmarks.

MetroStarsHSS0102.gif

IMG_0008.jpgvalderrama.jpg

It was the worst of both worlds - ugly but not even revenue-generating. So some fans thought it would be better to sell the ad space. I didn't agree, but I understood where they were coming from.

They also had sponsors on the back of the shirt and on the sleeve for these. It may have been a case of the sponsors feeling that if it were in front next to the log people would identify their brands with each team more easily. I'm surprised another sponsor hasn't jumped in to fill the space on the back like we see in Mexico and the lower English divisions.

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a really weird "rooting for commerce" thing going on here. Hoping that the league sells the rights to its own name is the kind of thing no American sports fan should ever be doing.

Yeah, I don't get that either. Gods know that the Etihad logo will be enough to keep me from picking up an NYCFC shirt, no matter how big a fan I am.

There were some MLS supporters who advocated shirt sponsors in those early days, because the clubs had filled the space with their hideous wordmarks.

MetroStarsHSS0102.gif

IMG_0008.jpgvalderrama.jpg

It was the worst of both worlds - ugly but not even revenue-generating. So some fans thought it would be better to sell the ad space. I didn't agree, but I understood where they were coming from.

They also had sponsors on the back of the shirt and on the sleeve for these. It may have been a case of the sponsors feeling that if it were in front next to the log people would identify their brands with each team more easily. I'm surprised another sponsor hasn't jumped in to fill the space on the back like we see in Mexico and the lower English divisions.

I remember those days of bandai, bud, honda etc. of being back of the shirt sponsors. One thing to keep in mind is that the mls back then was operating almost as a single ownership entity and all of those sponsors were official league sponsors. Now the clubs have to seek out their own deals and while there may be a future for mexican style multiple shirt sponsors in the mls there simply are not enough multi-level/pyramid scheme companies out there with sponsorship $ to burn at the moment. MLS should probably start looking toward the online casinos and payday loansharks for additional sponsorship opportunities. Better yet borrow from the bad news bears and go for the bail bondsmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a really weird "rooting for commerce" thing going on here. Hoping that the league sells the rights to its own name is the kind of thing no American sports fan should ever be doing.

Yeah, I don't get that either. Gods know that the Etihad logo will be enough to keep me from picking up an NYCFC shirt, no matter how big a fan I am.

There were some MLS supporters who advocated shirt sponsors in those early days, because the clubs had filled the space with their hideous wordmarks.

MetroStarsHSS0102.gif

IMG_0008.jpgvalderrama.jpg

It was the worst of both worlds - ugly but not even revenue-generating. So some fans thought it would be better to sell the ad space. I didn't agree, but I understood where they were coming from.

Even with the gaudy 90s wordmarks, this looks waaaaay better to me than the corporate sponsors that are on MLS shirts now. It's not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling the MLS brand of soccer "Premier" would be like McDonald's calling their burgers "Gourmet"

Its not only laughable, but insluting to great soccer leagues across the globe.

I'm just now getting into the MLS/soccer, is this the type of general pretentiousness I should expect?

17d39f21-957a-437b-8af3-d3e112b5259f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't mind sponsorship labels on the front of MLS jerseys, but I've always felt that there really needs to be at least SOME tie to the local area. X Box being on the front of the Sounders jerseys is fine because Microsoft is based in the Seattle area. But things like Best Buy sponsoring the Chicago Fire and Amway Global sponsoring the Quakes needs to die. Having, like, Unifed Airlines on the front of the Fire's jerseys and Chevron/Apple/Some other Bay Area based company on the Quakes jerseys would be just fine with me.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't mind sponsorship labels on the front of MLS jerseys, but I've always felt that there really needs to be at least SOME tie to the local area. X Box being on the front of the Sounders jerseys is fine because Microsoft is based in the Seattle area. But things like Best Buy sponsoring the Chicago Fire and Amway Global sponsoring the Quakes needs to die. Having, like, Unifed Airlines on the front of the Fire's jerseys and Chevron/Apple/Some other Bay Area based company on the Quakes jerseys would be just fine with me.

I agree 100%. The fact that Toronto FC has BMO's (Bank of Montreal) name on their kits and stadium has always bothered me, especially so now since the Montreal Impact are in the league and are also sponsored by BMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't mind sponsorship labels on the front of MLS jerseys, but I've always felt that there really needs to be at least SOME tie to the local area. X Box being on the front of the Sounders jerseys is fine because Microsoft is based in the Seattle area. But things like Best Buy sponsoring the Chicago Fire and Amway Global sponsoring the Quakes needs to die. Having, like, Unifed Airlines on the front of the Fire's jerseys and Chevron/Apple/Some other Bay Area based company on the Quakes jerseys would be just fine with me.

I agree 100%. The fact that Toronto FC has BMO's (Bank of Montreal) name on their kits and stadium has always bothered me, especially so now since the Montreal Impact are in the league and are also sponsored by BMO.

And I totally get that it's a logistical matter. You can't just hold a gun to the head of a major local company and force them to sponsor you. But it still bugs the entitled American sports fan in me to see that. I get it for the bigger clubs in the world, because they're getting the very top dollar from those sponsors. But you can't seriously tell me that there isn't at least SOME local company in Philadelphia (Comcast, for heaven's sake!) that wouldn't at least be willing to come close to matching what Bimbo Bakeries pays the Union to slap their logo on the front of their jerseys.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling the MLS brand of soccer "Premier" would be like McDonald's calling their burgers "Gourmet"

Its not only laughable, but insluting to great soccer leagues across the globe.

I'm just now getting into the MLS/soccer, is this the type of general pretentiousness I should expect?

Sadly, yes. You'll see that sort of silly derision from time to time. But less so, as attitudes are changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLS just doesn't have the same flare that EPL and La Liga have

NAPL: North American Premier League? Too close to NASL? But I agree the MLS is more an American type name than a world football type name.
I was talking about the name I was talking play within the leagues

Calling the MLS brand of soccer "Premier" would be like McDonald's calling their burgers "Gourmet"

Its not only laughable, but insluting to great soccer leagues across the globe.

I'm just now getting into the MLS/soccer, is this the type of general pretentiousness I should expect?

he's right just watch the premier league and watch the mls its not the same level of play
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLS just doesn't have the same flare that EPL and La Liga have

NAPL: North American Premier League? Too close to NASL? But I agree the MLS is more an American type name than a world football type name.
I was talking about the name I was talking play within the leagues

Calling the MLS brand of soccer "Premier" would be like McDonald's calling their burgers "Gourmet"

Its not only laughable, but insluting to great soccer leagues across the globe.

I'm just now getting into the MLS/soccer, is this the type of general pretentiousness I should expect?

he's right just watch the premier league and watch the mls its not the same level of play

Just because you're right about something doesn't mean you have to be pretentious about it.

17d39f21-957a-437b-8af3-d3e112b5259f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't mind sponsorship labels on the front of MLS jerseys, but I've always felt that there really needs to be at least SOME tie to the local area. X Box being on the front of the Sounders jerseys is fine because Microsoft is based in the Seattle area. But things like Best Buy sponsoring the Chicago Fire and Amway Global sponsoring the Quakes needs to die. Having, like, Unifed Airlines on the front of the Fire's jerseys and Chevron/Apple/Some other Bay Area based company on the Quakes jerseys would be just fine with me.

I agree 100%. The fact that Toronto FC has BMO's (Bank of Montreal) name on their kits and stadium has always bothered me, especially so now since the Montreal Impact are in the league and are also sponsored by BMO.

And I totally get that it's a logistical matter. You can't just hold a gun to the head of a major local company and force them to sponsor you. But it still bugs the entitled American sports fan in me to see that. I get it for the bigger clubs in the world, because they're getting the very top dollar from those sponsors. But you can't seriously tell me that there isn't at least SOME local company in Philadelphia (Comcast, for heaven's sake!) that wouldn't at least be willing to come close to matching what Bimbo Bakeries pays the Union to slap their logo on the front of their jerseys.

Bimbo Bakeries USA is located just outside Philadelphia, but I'd much prefer "Amoroso's" on the front of the Union's jersey than "Bimbo".

17d39f21-957a-437b-8af3-d3e112b5259f.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.