MLS Chicago Fire FC Reveal Disappointing New Logo

[SambamOverTime]

Can't you agree that the new Chicago Fire and Real Salt Lake MLS logos look like the colors have changed spots? It looks like Salt Lake and Chicago are now affiliated instead. Honestly, Chicago should change their logo to the one @Lafarge made. It was a simple redesign, yet still kept the classic CF look. Now we get this new ugly logo.

[rams80]

Have we considered the possibility that the logo was a rejected secondary for Real Salt Lake?

[JTernup]

15 hours ago, Foxxtrot44 said:

 

Holy shiz, I just woke up in 2006!! Excuse me while I go buy some Disney stock.

That nickname as well as things that would get me banned from the boards are still very alive and well in Commerce City.

 

12 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Cutting a lot for the sake of space...
 

All things being equal, as long as the On Goal, LLC partnership succeeded in getting the stadium built and putting a winner on the field, the stands would have been full... even if the team was still named the Wizards.                   
   

I disagree that Burn was the only name that needed fixing. IMO every single retired MLS name deserves to be. Wiz, Wizards, Clash, Mutiny, and Fusion are all terrible. When paired with the weird rules and early struggles of MLS in a soccer landscape that included previous failed leagues it all felt very cheap/xtreme/fly by night. The league literally poisoned markets like Tampa, Miami, Denver, and Chicago with the way MLS 1.0 was handled. Changing names was necessary, they didn’t have to be euro names but it did certainly draw in a new crowd that started to take the league seriously. By your own admission there are a lot of eurosnobs. Many for example will support Inter Miami with their fancy name, colors and Beckham ties but wouldn’t have touched a 25 year old Fusion franchise with a 10 foot pole.

 

Youre totally right that those other things are important, likely far more important. But, we can’t discount how important the name change was. Compare my Rapids to SKC, both had new owners and a new stadium around the same time. One became the new club with a fresh name the other was and has been the same old Rapids. Perceptions are hard to overcome and the Rapids and others will always struggle because it’s too easy to remember the days of shot clocks, big hair, big jerseys and 10% capacity football fields.

 

As for the SKC name happening in a vacuum, that’s ridiculous! Maybe the owners were woefully unaware but the marketing company that pitched the name surely knew about the Euro name trend and the fans clearly responded to it. MLS in 2005 didn’t need to worry about losing some fans who liked the Wizards, they desperately needed new fans who thought the rainbow clad Wiz were a joke franchise. That was only happening via a good name change, Euro or otherwise.

[Brian in Boston]

13 hours ago, JTernup said:

I disagree that Burn was the only name that needed fixing. IMO every single retired MLS name deserves to be. Wiz, Wizards, Clash, Mutiny, and Fusion are all terrible. When paired with the weird rules and early struggles of MLS in a soccer landscape that included previous failed leagues it all felt very cheap/xtreme/fly by night. The league literally poisoned markets like Tampa, Miami, Denver, and Chicago with the way MLS 1.0 was handled. Changing names was necessary, they didn’t have to be euro names but it did certainly draw in a new crowd that started to take the league seriously. By your own admission there are a lot of eurosnobs. Many for example will support Inter Miami with their fancy name, colors and Beckham ties but wouldn’t have touched a 25 year old Fusion franchise with a 10 foot pole.

 

Youre totally right that those other things are important, likely far more important. But, we can’t discount how important the name change was. Compare my Rapids to SKC, both had new owners and a new stadium around the same time. One became the new club with a fresh name the other was and has been the same old Rapids. Perceptions are hard to overcome and the Rapids and others will always struggle because it’s too easy to remember the days of shot clocks, big hair, big jerseys and 10% capacity football fields.

 

As for the SKC name happening in a vacuum, that’s ridiculous! Maybe the owners were woefully unaware but the marketing company that pitched the name surely knew about the Euro name trend and the fans clearly responded to it. MLS in 2005 didn’t need to worry about losing some fans who liked the Wizards, they desperately needed new fans who thought the rainbow clad Wiz were a joke franchise. That was only happening via a good name change, Euro or otherwise.

It wasn't team branding that undermined Major League Soccer's first foray into the South Florida marketplace. It won't be team branding that determines the success of the league's second attempt to make a go of it there.

David Beckham and the Mas brothers are bringing more than a "fancy name" and new "colors" to the table in the Miami market. Far more importantly, they're spending serious cash - and expending a great deal of effort - to not only build a brand new soccer-specific stadium, club headquarters, and training facility in Fort Lauderdale, but to also pursue the ultimate goal of constructing a permanent soccer-specific home for Inter Miami on the site of Melreese Country Club. Will they be successful? Only time will tell. If not, it won't be for lack of effort or investment. If so, it won't simply be because they opted to brand the franchise with an  international-style name and badge.

As for how many people would or "wouldn't have touched a 25 year old Fusion franchise with a 10 foot pole", neither you nor I have any way of categorically knowing the answer to that question. Investor/operator Ken Horowitz didn't have the financial resources necessary to get the Fusion to a fifth season, let alone through a quarter-century of operation. On the other hand, if a committed and deep-pocketed investor/operator had been found to steward the Fusion through 25 years of operation, the very fact that the team survived so long would seem to imply that it had developed some sort of dedicated following. Either way, the Fusion branding wouldn't have been the prime factor in determining the franchise's fortunes.

As for the move to the Sporting Kansas City brand, the fans in the market clearly were not on-board with the new identity when it was first introduced. What they positively responded to was OnGoal, LLC's commitment to getting a soccer-specific stadium built and increasing investment in the on-field product. If the OnGoal, LLC partners had been content to have their franchise continue to operate as a tenant in Community America Ballpark, with a lineup that failed to produce on the field, the Sporting Kansas City brand wouldn't have gained traction in the market. By the same token, there's no reason to believe that a competitive Kansas City Wizards franchise playing in state-of-the-art Children's Mercy Park wouldn't be just as popular as a team branded in the international style. 

Look, I'm not against the use of international-style team branding conventions in Major League Soccer. I actually think the fact that the league's lineup of teams embrace a mix of branding styles represents a strength. That said, the notion that turning a struggling MLS franchise is "only happening via a good name change" is a fallacy.

I get that we're all sports logo and uniform enthusiasts around here, but we sometimes run the risk of seriously overestimating the power of a rebranding, in and of itself, to impact the successful business operation of a pro sports organization. All things being equal, a new team name, logo, and/or uniforms has the potential to excite a fanbase in the short-term (or, draw their ire), but a truly lasting impact upon a franchise's fortunes is only going to be accomplished by engaging in more systemic changes to said organization's operation. The location and amenities - both for patrons and players - of a franchise's arena/ballpark/stadium, the efficacy of its talent procurement and development procedures, the quality of its coaching... these are all far more important than a team's name, the shape of a its badge, or the colors of its uniforms when it comes to establishing the fortunes of a sports franchise.

At the end of the day, the thrill of rooting for what any one of us might personally consider to be the best-branded team in MLS is going to wear thin if said franchise can't deliver a compelling product on the field. It's amazing what watching a competitive team that calls a state-of-the-art facility home can do for a supporter's acceptance of said side's brand.            

[MilSox]

6 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

I get that we're all sports logo and uniform enthusiasts around here, but we sometimes run the risk of seriously overestimating the power of a rebranding, in and of itself, to impact the successful business operation of a pro sports organization. All things being equal, a new team name, logo, and/or uniforms has the potential to excite a fanbase in the short-term (or, draw their ire), but a truly lasting impact upon a franchise's fortunes is only going to be accomplished by engaging in more systemic changes to said organization's operation. The location and amenities - both for patrons and players - of a franchise's arena/ballpark/stadium, the efficacy of its talent procurement and development procedures, the quality of its coaching... these are all far more important than a team's name, the shape of a its badge, or the colors of its uniforms when it comes to establishing the fortunes of a sports franchise.

As valid of a point as this is, I don't see how anyone can deny the team's names weren't a huge part of why MLS wasn't taken seriously in the 90s and early 00s.  I specifically remember the KC Wiz's name being the butt of a joke in every critical article about the league.

[IceCap]

I'm going to have to ask that we either cease the talk about the importance of MLS rebranding to the league's present success, or continue it in a dedicated thread. Let's keep this thread focused on the Chicago Fire's new logo.

[Pharos04]

8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm going to have to ask that we either cease the talk about the importance of MLS rebranding to the league's present success, or continue it in a dedicated thread. Let's keep this thread focused on the Chicago Fire's new logo.

[Gothamite]

Peter Wilt continues to promote his favorite concepts:

 

 

[Jezus_Ghoti]

10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Peter Wilt continues to promote his favorite concepts:

 

 

 

Wow. That one is impressive. Though I wonder if maybe flipping the red and blue would improve it. 

[Gothamite]

Maybe.  Which blue are you thinking?  Light or dark?

[Jezus_Ghoti]

15 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Maybe.  Which blue are you thinking?  Light or dark?

 

Not sure. Just think it would preserve a bit more of the original crest (where the fireman's shield was blue) and also the Chicago flag (where the starburst is red) if the colors were flipped. A red star would also look more like fire.  

[PaleVermilion81]

16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Peter Wilt continues to promote his favorite concepts:

 

 

 

I don't like that the C has those angle lines cut into it. Especially with the star cutting into it with what appears to be a different white thickness. I think the C should have those angled lines filled in.

[Brian in Boston]

I believe that the overall shape of the 'C' - including the angled lines at the upper lefthand and lower lefthand corners of the letter - are meant to evoke the form of a St. Florian's cross, widely used as a symbol of firefighting... which is why it inspired the Chicago Fire's original badge.

As to the coloring of the logo M. Willis designed, I'd swap the red of the 'C' and the navy blue of the six-pointed star. As Jezus_Ghoti pointed out, such a switch would more accurately reflect both the color of the St. Florian's cross in the original Chicago Fire badge and the six-pointed stars on the City of Chicago's municipal flag.           

[MDGP]

My issue is that logo above was clearly designed only with a navy blue background in mind, which looks very good. I think the white background with the light blue outline is extremely jarring and the effect he's going for disappears.

[SambamOverTime]

The logo that Willis made is okay. I can see where he could go with it, but I would like it better if it still contained the elements of the previous Chicago logo. So I still believe the @Lafarge's is better than both logos. 

[Brian in Boston]

Frankly, Lafarge, I'd love either of these updates that you designed:



I go back and forth on changing the 'C', but I ultimately think that you'd be better off going with the design on the right, as doing so anticipates - and renders moot - any complaints the Cubs might have. That being said, the perfectionist in me thinks that each 'C' in the small 'CHICAGO' word mark should then be changed so as to mirror the letter at the center of the logo.

I'm also of the mind that, regardless of which of the logos you used, Chicago Fire Football Club management's pushback would be that either one could still be mistaken for a fire department's logo. To that end, I believe that they'd want you to somehow integrate 'FC' into the badge. You could include said letters separately, with a white 'F' on the lefthand arm of the St. Florian's cross and a white 'C' on the righthand arm. You could create a bit of space in the red line on the lower arm of the cross and align a white 'FC' - both letters together - under the 'I' and 'R' in 'FIRE'. Finally, you could slide 'FIRE' to the lefthand side on the bottom arm of the cross, leave a space equivalent to a single letter of type, then include a white 'FC' to the righthand side of the bottom arm, thus establishing 'FIRE FC' as a counterbalance to the 'CHICAGO' at the top of the mark.

Purely out of curiosity, I'm wondering what the logo would look like with the powder blue of the Chicago municipal flag replacing the silver grey.

In any event, the direction in which you took your redesign would have been the ideal path for Chicago Fire FC ownership/management to follow while undertaking a brand reset. That said, it strikes me that Joe Masueto, as the Fire's new owner, wanted to put his mark on the team. So, he authorized and encouraged a radical makeover.            

[BigRed618]

On 11/27/2019 at 6:30 PM, SambamOverTime said:

Can't you agree that the new Chicago Fire and Real Salt Lake MLS logos look like the colors have changed spots? It looks like Salt Lake and Chicago are now affiliated instead.

Technically, the Red Bulls have the same colors too. And ironically, both RSL and RBNY wear more red than Fire does now. I think that’s the part I’m gonna miss the most. Chicago has always been a red team, and it seems like none of that means anything now.

[PaleVermilion81]

4 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

I believe that the overall shape of the 'C' - including the angled lines at the upper lefthand and lower lefthand corners of the letter - are meant to evoke the form of a St. Florian's cross, widely used as a symbol of firefighting... which is why it inspired the Chicago Fire's original badge.         

 

Yep, I read through the post. The problem is also having the 6-pointed star cutting through that same shape. It makes for a lot of odd cut out lines and those 2 little red triangles. It's a good first attempt, but if that replaced the now old Chicago crest, I don't think we'd be singing it's praises. Compared to the new one? It's better, but that doesn't take much.

[San Diego]

I'm surprised everyone dislikes the Quakes logos so much. I think they're fine. 

[TaylorMade]