Major League Soccer 1996

[Digby]

Very interesting. I always think it's funny to see how loose the jerseys from the 90's was, while today you have Puma making soccer kits for Arsenal, Dortmund, etc. that are super tight.

Anyway, MLS has come a long way from '96. But when you consider the nicknames from '96, it still baffles me that people get so upset over team names with "FC" and "SC" in them and complain about them being boring. Would you rather your team be called the Wiz? Or the Burn? FC Dallas to me is a country mile (pun intended) better than the Dallas Burn.

This is a false dichotomy. There's plenty of room between generic FC names and ridiculous x-treme 90s names. Nothing wrong with names like the Timbers, Sounders, Whitecaps, or Fire.

[MJWalker45]

I wonder if MLS clubs will have throwback kits next year to commemorate the 20th anniversary, even though some of the kits were Nike. I'd love to see KC be the Wiz and NYRB to be the Metrostars one more time.

Since this is year 20 I was hoping to see them this year. I'd love for a Heritage Week or something along that line where the original MLS teams wore a signature look. Unfortunately I could see adidas only supplying adidas era uniforms to all the teams. The Galaxy and Metrostars looked good when Nike went back to more traditional uniforms such as the horizontal stripes. Dallas Burn had good kits with Atletica and Umbro made the Revolution look pretty good, something that's hard to do with that horrible logo. I even used to have a gold 2002 LA Galaxy shirt that was a pretty sweet look for the club. That was the one thing I hated about their rebrand to all white. It took a pretty cool uniform look and replaced it with a knockoff Real Madrid look.

[JayMac]

The only uniform on there that I would ever want to see featured as a throwback is DC's. The rest can be thrown into a bonfire.

As a one-off. Trust me. I don't want them hanging around any longer than that.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I didn't fully explain what I meant there. Basically, I believe that since most teams around the world have 3 names (the full name, like Arsenal FC; the shorthand name, like Arsenal; and the nickname, like the Gunners) then it's nothing new or unusual to have American teams with a city name and nickname, for those who feel an aversion to MLS teams having nicknames.

Nobody's saying that. There's some aversion to incredibly stupid nicknames like "Burn", but I'm not aware of anyone saying that no MLS teams can have American-ish nicknames.

It runs entirely in the other direction, with people who insist that "FC" is somehow invalid. You can see it on this very thread. Those are the ones who are insisting that there must be a one-size-fits-all approach.

Still, in order for your example to really apply, they would have to be "Seattle FC" with the fans originating "Sounders" and the club adopting it but keeping it out of the official name.

[Digby]

If I remember right, Seattle FC was one of the voting options for that team when they joined MLS, along with other choices that were not Sounders. Fan outcry for "Sounders" made it the official nickname.

[MJWalker45]

If I remember right, Seattle FC was one of the voting options for that team when they joined MLS, along with other choices that were not Sounders. Fan outcry for "Sounders" made it the official nickname.

Emerald City was an option too, but that was being used by the supporters group if I remember correctly. And i do remember that Sounders was eventually added in.

[Crabcake]

it still baffles me that people get so upset over team names with "FC" and "SC" in them and complain about them being boring. Would you rather your team be called the Wiz? Or the Burn? FC Dallas to me is a country mile (pun intended) better than the Dallas Burn.

Yes. Being from KC, I would prefer KC Wizards to Sporting KC. Is it a strange name that screams "1990s"? Sure. But you know what, that's the history. For a league so into years of inception, they sure don't mind revising history. As a person who enjoys soccer (but isn't a die hard fan) I would prefer hokey nicknames to contrived plagiarism.

I actually agree with you. I like wizards to Sporting KC, but "wiz" was just awful. I'd actually be very happy if the KC wizards were around today, it would make for more interesting unis.

Very interesting. I always think it's funny to see how loose the jerseys from the 90's was, while today you have Puma making soccer kits for Arsenal, Dortmund, etc. that are super tight.

Anyway, MLS has come a long way from '96. But when you consider the nicknames from '96, it still baffles me that people get so upset over team names with "FC" and "SC" in them and complain about them being boring. Would you rather your team be called the Wiz? Or the Burn? FC Dallas to me is a country mile (pun intended) better than the Dallas Burn.

This is a false dichotomy. There's plenty of room between generic FC names and ridiculous x-treme 90s names. Nothing wrong with names like the Timbers, Sounders, Whitecaps, or Fire.

I'm not saying there IS anything wrong with those team names. In fact, they're fantastic. But what bothers me is when people get so worked up over the fact that FC and SC are "boring" when they are much better than some options.

[eRay]

This article features an interesting statement.

The Rhythm logo and colors, a coiled cobra in red, yellow and black, already had appeared on merchandise in soccer catalogues.

I can't find any photos of this anywhere. Anyone?

[seattlesonicsofsacramento]

My only problem with initials like FC are that it's Major League Soccer, so all the teams are Soccer Clubs (SC). Not to mention we call them teams, not clubs--which is much more fitting, since they were all created as league-owned franchises, not organically grown as local clubs of friends/coworkers/neighbors--so even SC is misleading. That's why I think Nike had the right idea with [city name] [nickname] in creating the original MLS team identities. That's the American sports team naming convention. The only downside is that the team names (and uniforms) were entirely 90s.

Arsenal (Gunners), Manchester United (Red Devils), Tottenham (Hotspurs), Chelsea (Blues). It's not unprecedented. The nicknames just have to be timeless.

I love oral histories though and I'm def going to read this entire article.

Club is the traditional way of referring to professional soccer teams. In soccer, team is more general than club--e.g., if you were to ask a player which team he/she plays for, the answer could be a professional team or a national team. On the other hand, if you were ask a player which club he/she plays for, the answer will always be a professional team.

Soccer is short for association football, so I don't care if Major League Soccer teams prefer to call themselves football clubs instead of soccer clubs. Soccer is an international sport, so it makes sense to adhere to the conventions like FC and club.

Yeah, I didn't fully explain what I meant there. Basically, I believe that since most teams around the world have 3 names (the full name, like Arsenal FC; the shorthand name, like Arsenal; and the nickname, like the Gunners) then it's nothing new or unusual to have American teams with a city name and nickname, for those who feel an aversion to MLS teams having nicknames.

Seattle Sounders FC (should be SC or ST though), Seattle, the Sounders.

The difference being that many (maybe even most) soccer teams around the world don't have official nicknames, their nicknames have been given them by media, fans, and opponents. Several teams have multiple nicknames, for example--

City, the Citizens, the Sky Blue for Mancester City

Villa, the Villans, the Lions, the Claret and Blue for Aston Villa

los Blancos, los Merengues, or los Galicticos for Real Madrid

los Groguets or el Submarino Amarilla for Villareal

And these unofficial nicknames are never used in combination with the team name--Mancester United Red Devils or Real Madrid Merengues, which is why it's feels weird for many soccer fans to use team name plus nickname combination when referring to MLS team.

Sorry for the huge quote, but I'm responding to both "halves" of it.

You're exactly right, "soccer is an international sport". And part of that in my opinion/aesthetic preference should be that we embrace each country's language and naming conventions. I just made a logopack on Football Manager 2015 for the top 5 leagues of Hungary's soccer pyramid. Here's a list of abbreviations just the clubs in the first division use:

• SC: Sport Clubot
• TC: Torna ("Gymnastics") Club
• ETO: Egyetértés Torna Osztály ("Concordance Gymnastics Department")
• FC (x5): Futball Clubot
• TE: Testedző Egyesület ("Gymnastics Club")
• SE: Sport Egyesület ("Sport Club")
• MTK: Magyar Testgyakorlók Köre (Hungarian ? ?)

So many names, all accurately capturing each club's origins, whether they started out as a general sports/gymnastics club or purely football. Abbreviations should (1) be localized to each nation's language and (2) authentically capture what that club (or team) is about.

In the MLS's case, each team was formed exactly as that: to be a typical American team in a typical American pro sports league. And it doesn't matter that soccer is short for association football, because we don't call it football (F[C]) or association football (AF[C]) for that matter. Soccer Team (ST) is the most precise way to describe what each of those original 1996 MLS teams were. My biggest problem with giving an MLS team FC or SC is it's inauthentic. It's trying to capture something the MLS isn't about. There's a very specific reason why international football clubs were originally called clubs: because that's exactly what they were. The MLS was born long after that ceased to be the case.

As for your point that "many (maybe even most) soccer teams around the world don't have official nicknames, their nicknames have been given them by media, fans, and opponents", you're onto a point that I completely agree with. A major problem (or at least difference) with the MLS is that it did NOT form organically. It was pre-planned (as raysox's article shows, even the teams were planned years in advance) and controlled by the league in a very deliberate manner, to try and show that the U.S. was worthy of having hosted a World Cup and to try and re-develop our game so that we could qualify for more. So yeah, all the MLS teams starting out with nicknames seems very inauthentic, corporate, lame, etc.

But 2001mark brings up a good point, that it's still possible for MLS teams (even one of the most recent MLS teams) to organically develop a nickname. So there is hope.

In my ideal 1996 inaugural season of the MLS, each team would have been given the full name of [city/state/region name] [sT/other authentic American identifier] and allowed to organically develop its own nickname over time (a la Toronto FC). Of course that's way too idealistic for an American pro sports league.

[Sodboy13]

This article features an interesting statement.

The Rhythm logo and colors, a coiled cobra in red, yellow and black, already had appeared on merchandise in soccer catalogues.

I can't find any photos of this anywhere. Anyone?

I've never seen it, but I think it was actually orange/teal/black, or something close to that. I believe jl_murtaugh has seen it, and described it here previously.

[Gothamite]

In the MLS's case, each team was formed exactly as that: to be a typical American team in a typical American pro sports league. And it doesn't matter that soccer is short for association football, because we don't call it football (F[C]) or association football (AF[C]) for that matter. Soccer Team (ST) is the most precise way to describe what each of those original 1996 MLS teams were. My biggest problem with giving an MLS team FC or SC is it's inauthentic. It's trying to capture something the MLS isn't about. There's a very specific reason why international football clubs were originally called clubs: because that's exactly what they were. The MLS was born long after that ceased to be the case.

Um, no.

In England, yes, You would be correct. Sort of. But in American English, "club" is used to describe any professional team, no matter what the circumstances of its founding.

So "FC" or "SC" is perfectly appropriate. Under standard American naming conventions.

That's like saying because "United" sometimes indicated the merger of two clubs, Man United can't use it.

[seattlesonicsofsacramento]

In the MLS's case, each team was formed exactly as that: to be a typical American team in a typical American pro sports league. And it doesn't matter that soccer is short for association football, because we don't call it football (F[C]) or association football (AF[C]) for that matter. Soccer Team (ST) is the most precise way to describe what each of those original 1996 MLS teams were. My biggest problem with giving an MLS team FC or SC is it's inauthentic. It's trying to capture something the MLS isn't about. There's a very specific reason why international football clubs were originally called clubs: because that's exactly what they were. The MLS was born long after that ceased to be the case.

Um, no.

In England, yes, You would be correct. Sort of. But in American English, "club" is used to describe any professional team, no matter what the circumstances of its founding.

So "FC" or "SC" is perfectly appropriate. Under standard American naming conventions.

That's like saying because "United" sometimes indicated the merger of two clubs, Man United can't use it.

Is "club" used in reference to any professional sports team in the U.S., or any baseball team in the U.S.? When I think about it, that's the only sport that calls a locker room a clubhouse. And I may be wrong, but does basketball, American football, or hockey have any teams with "club" in their name? I think you've found the exception to the rule, not the standard convention.

[Gothamite]

No, you see it in all American sports. At least hockey and gridiron football in addition to baseball. They might not put it on their logos, but check out the official names of these teams:

http://rangers.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=55322

http://hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.Chicago_Bears_Football_Club_Inc.4107b37878785f80.html

It's perhaps a little old-fashioned, but it exists. You're trying to draw a distinction between "team" and "club" that doesn't exist in American English.

Similarly, "clubhouse" is commonly used to describe football locker rooms as well. You're hearing that one a lot at the moment:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deflate-gate-tom-brady-suspended-four-games-n357076

John Jastremski and James McNally, the Patriots clubhouse workers who were involved in the deflation of the balls were suspended indefinitely by the club on May 6.

I stand by the comparison to "United" - teams chose it because it sounded appropriate to the sport, and for no other reason. Doesn't make Man United or West Ham United any less legitimate.

[Kevin W.]

And of course we can't forget le Club de hockey Canadien.

[Mingjai]

In the MLS's case, each team was formed exactly as that: to be a typical American team in a typical American pro sports league. And it doesn't matter that soccer is short for association football, because we don't call it football (F[C]) or association football (AF[C]) for that matter. Soccer Team (ST) is the most precise way to describe what each of those original 1996 MLS teams were. My biggest problem with giving an MLS team FC or SC is it's inauthentic. It's trying to capture something the MLS isn't about. There's a very specific reason why international football clubs were originally called clubs: because that's exactly what they were. The MLS was born long after that ceased to be the case.

Um, no.

In England, yes, You would be correct. Sort of. But in American English, "club" is used to describe any professional team, no matter what the circumstances of its founding.

[image Omitted]

So "FC" or "SC" is perfectly appropriate. Under standard American naming conventions.

That's like saying because "United" sometimes indicated the merger of two clubs, Man United can't use it.

Is "club" used in reference to any professional sports team in the U.S., or any baseball team in the U.S.? When I think about it, that's the only sport that calls a locker room a clubhouse. And I may be wrong, but does basketball, American football, or hockey have any teams with "club" in their name? I think you've found the exception to the rule, not the standard convention.

I think the Twins are one of the few baseball teams in which baseball club appears on official material, but several teams have baseball club in their official names. The Houston Astros and Texas Rangers both do. Even for those that don't have club officially in their name, they are often referred to as a club or a baseball club.

The Minnesota Wild are officially the Minnesota Wild Hockey Club.

[Brian in Boston]

Here's my 2-cents...

When it comes to the traditions that govern the naming of pro soccer teams worldwide, said traditions include the so-called "American" convention of combining a place-name with a nickname. Soccer... football... futbol... calcio... is a GLOBAL sports phenomenon. Said globe includes the United States of America and Canada. As such, the "American" franchise naming convention is as legitimate a part of soccer's branding traditions as any other. Therefore, I see no reason to believe that pro soccer in this country is suddenly going to abandon place-name/nickname combos completely. Nor should it.

Major League Soccer is likely to remain a league marked by multiple franchise branding traditions for the forseeable future: "American" (Chicago Fire, New England Revolution, Columbus Crew, etc.),.. "International/Euro" (DC United... FC Dallas... New York City FC, etc.)... even corporate (New York Red Bulls). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anything, the variety makes for a less staid, more colorful and creative landscape.

My only concern would be if long-time MLS franchises jettisoned existing identities solely to ape whatever branding style happened to be trending at a given time. Similarly, as new teams enter MLS representing cities that had longstanding traditions in previous American and Canadian soccer leagues, I would hope they'd give consideration to reviving/maintaining identities from said leagues (as the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, and Vancouver Whitecaps recently have).

[Discrim]

Far as MLS' original shirts, the only ones I wanna see make a comeback are DC United's chest stripes and the Crew's striped sleeves. None of the Nike kits though, I don't know what Nike was smoking in 96. DC just hasn't looked right to me since they dropped the chest stripes.

Far as non-soccer "clubs," can't forget the Chicago National League Ball Club.

[2001mark]

In all seriousness, remembering where MLS came from to what it is achieving today, even with its no so secret league DP maneuvering, shows how much has improved.

Hopefully 10 more years brings just as much progress.

[2001mark]

But 2001mark brings up a good point, that it's still possible for MLS teams (even one of the most recent MLS teams) to organically develop a nickname. So there is hope.

To be fair, I was just pointing out the local flavour. Toronto media, primarily TFC/MLS beat writers, use the term Reds often enough... & we fans appreciate that enough.

We don't require uni branding or wordmarks or even any other MLS market at all whatsoever to even know that exists.

Besides, TFC is a lot easier to cheer than mouthfuls MCFC or NYFC...

[Gothamite]

Major League Soccer is likely to remain a league marked by multiple franchise branding traditions for the forseeable future: "American" (Chicago Fire, New England Revolution, Columbus Crew, etc.),.. "International/Euro" (DC United... FC Dallas... New York City FC, etc.)... even corporate (New York Red Bulls). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anything, the variety makes for a less staid, more colorful and creative landscape.

And here's the thing - nobody is suggesting anything else.

We have plenty of people who rail against that diversity when it comes to FC names, but nobody is going on the other direction to insist that all clubs adopt them.