FYI: Its Real Salt Lake

[Sean84106]

Lame, lame, lame. "Real" Madrid works because there's a freaking monarchy in Spain. There's nothing "royal" about soccer in Utah. Mother:censored:ing poseurs.

Again, may I ask what is so royal about LA or Sacramento? Or Kansas City for that matter?

Well, you're talking about mascots or nicknames. In general, football players aren't literally "Eagles," nor baseball players "Tigers," nor basketball players "Kings." It's a conceit we've come to allow.

In the rest of the world, clubs have names that generally don't include nicknames. As I understand it, the "Real" in Real Madrid doesn't suggest that the players are royal, or Royals, or Kings...but rather that the club is (or was) affiliated w/ the monarchy.

Calling the new MLS club ReAL Salt Lake attempts to borrow from that tradition. But the name doesn't fit w/ the American mascots/nicknames format, nor the European royal affliliation. It's not a mascot. It's not a nickname. It doesn't enjoy sponsorship by a monarchy. And consequently, it doesn't make sense.

Ok, well answer me this. Were there ever any Wizards in Kansas City (their MLS team)? Or a MetroStar in New York/Jersey (their MLS team?) Or how about the fact that Washington DC borrowed its name from the Manchester United? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't work.

[JQK]

Well, i think any celebrity of consequence that lives in NY or any metropolitan area could be called a MetroStar. So the name hase some appeal.

But you forgot that they no longer have the NY/NJ in the name, they are now just the Metrostars. And i think it works alot better. As for the euro names... well, it's just an attempt to fit in with the soccer world. It's not a bad move, but i can see how it could piss people off, because it's not original.

But, like any club naming, some will like it, some wont.

it's just a name people.

[Breakwood]

I like the new names. MLS is a joke to fans in Europe allthough respect is growing so I think this is the best way to go.

[DEAD!]

I wouldn't mind seeing AC D.C.

Damn, I wish I thought of that.

[Cashcleaner]

I like the new names. MLS is a joke to fans in Europe allthough respect is growing so I think this is the best way to go.

Well, the problem with that is that the European's respect toward MSL is't growing at all. It's still looked down upon as a third-rate league, and in my opinion, the stupid naming conventions getting used in the league doesn't help matters. I actually just got an email today from a friend who had noticed the new REAL Salt Lake logos and he was fuming at the idea of the name. Whereas Real Madrid has a specific history and culture attached to it's name, Salt Lake has merely copied a previous name for the benefit of public image. If anything, the MSL has to stop trying to pose like a European league with European naming conventions and whanot and maybe then, they'll get the international respect they want.

Still though, AC D.C. is comic genius. I'm surprised it hasn't been used.

[Gothamite]

Well, I think the most important thing in improving the impressions of US Soccer is the quality of play. MLS is considered a third-rate league because they are a third-rate league. MLS teams just can't compete with any European clubs of any standing.

The names will come later.

[ColeJ]

Well, I think the most important thing in improving the impressions of US Soccer is the quality of play. MLS is considered a third-rate league because they are a third-rate league. MLS teams just can't compete with any European clubs of any standing.

The names will come later.

in all fairness, the MLS teams have a pretty impressive record in exhibition games against the english premier league... blackburn lost in a penalty shootout to DC United a few years ago.

and to sum up my views on this whole topic:

FC Dallas = fine, because 90% of the dallas burn fans are futbol fans, instead of soccer fans. also, it doesn't try to borrow from any other cultures. dallas soccer is very hispanic oriented, so i think it's a great new identity, and will definately ADD to their fanbase. most people i know down here think BURN is a silly WNBA-style name.

Real Salt Lake = pretty dumb, because it has no basis... there are a million other names that would have made sense, and still been traditional. Salt Lake City Athletic would have been fine...

[Sean84106]

In the end it isn't the name of the team that matters, it's their ability to win and how many butts they can put in the stands.

The Utah Jazz is another one of those WTF names, yet they're one of the most successful teams in NBA history...so it's all gravy.

FC Dallas = fine, because 90% of the dallas burn fans are futbol fans, instead of soccer fans. also, it doesn't try to borrow from any other cultures. dallas soccer is very hispanic oriented, so i think it's a great new identity, and will definately ADD to their fanbase. most people i know down here think BURN is a silly WNBA-style name.

Did you poll Dallas fans to get that 90% figure? Or was that just a number you pulled out of your ass?

[ColeJ]

In the end it isn't the name of the team that matters, it's their ability to win and how many butts they can put in the stands.

The Utah Jazz is another one of those WTF names, yet they're one of the most successful teams in NBA history...so it's all gravy.

FC Dallas = fine, because 90% of the dallas burn fans are futbol fans, instead of soccer fans. also, it doesn't try to borrow from any other cultures. dallas soccer is very hispanic oriented, so i think it's a great new identity, and will definately ADD to their fanbase. most people i know down here think BURN is a silly WNBA-style name.

Did you poll Dallas fans to get that 90% figure? Or was that just a number you pulled out of your ass?

i'd say it was a form of unscientific poll... i've been to a couple games, and 9 out of 10 people in the stands are hispanic, while probably 19 out 20 fans you see on the street wearing mls merch are hispanic. the other people are often little kids of all races.

so obviously my percentage isn't going to be dead-on, but you're getting pretty anal retentive if you're going to call me on it... point is, i live in dallas, and i see the fan base of this team. most of their fans speak spanish at least as much as they speak english, so FC Dallas is an acceptable name... the games are also broadcast locally on telemundo, in spanish, and call the games "dallas burn futbol" on the broadcasts...... real salt lake makes very little sense, because it doesn't fit in with the culture of the fan base in any way... but FC Dallas actually makes a lot of sense.

but again, since a lot of non-burn fans on this forum hate the name, even though the fan base of the team has already embraced it and accepted it as an upgrade, i suppose they should go back to burn... i'm sure it means more to you guys than the people who actually go to the games

[amare32]

Lame, lame, lame. "Real" Madrid works because there's a freaking monarchy in Spain. There's nothing "royal" about soccer in Utah. Mother:censored:ing poseurs.

Again, may I ask what is so royal about LA or Sacramento? Or Kansas City for that matter?

Well, you're talking about mascots or nicknames. In general, football players aren't literally "Eagles," nor baseball players "Tigers," nor basketball players "Kings." It's a conceit we've come to allow.

In the rest of the world, clubs have names that generally don't include nicknames. As I understand it, the "Real" in Real Madrid doesn't suggest that the players are royal, or Royals, or Kings...but rather that the club is (or was) affiliated w/ the monarchy.

Calling the new MLS club ReAL Salt Lake attempts to borrow from that tradition. But the name doesn't fit w/ the American mascots/nicknames format, nor the European royal affliliation. It's not a mascot. It's not a nickname. It doesn't enjoy sponsorship by a monarchy. And consequently, it doesn't make sense.

Ok, well answer me this. Were there ever any Wizards in Kansas City (their MLS team)? Or a MetroStar in New York/Jersey (their MLS team?) Or how about the fact that Washington DC borrowed its name from the Manchester United? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't work.

I'm recognizing two historic naming traditions.

1. In the United States, we pair cities (Kansas City) w/ nicknames and/or mascots (Wizards). The nicknames don't always make sense -- what's a MetroStar? who is a Magic? -- but the format doesn't require logic.

2. In the rest of the world, they simply use the name of a city (Barcelona) or a club (Hearts). Sometimes they will attach a designation, like "Chelsea FC" (for Football Club) or "Manchester United" (indicating an attempt to unify supporters from across a city) or "Real Madrid" (indicating royal sponsorship). Generally speaking, there is some logical relationship between the club and the designation.

Real Madrid is in the global tradition, w/ the name of the city, a designation, and no mascot. Use of the word "Real" makes sense in this context because the club in fact has a history of affiliation w/ Spanish royalty.

ReAL Salt Lake fits in neither the American nor the international tradition. "ReAL" is neither a mascot nor a nickname. It's an attempt to affix a designation, but the designation does not make sense -- because there is no royalty in Salt Lake City to sponsor the club. It would make as much sense to affix "FC" (for Football Club) to a baseball team. Anaheim Angels FC. Wha? There's no relationship. The name does not fit.

[DEAD!]

but again, since a lot of non-burn fans on this forum hate the name, even though the fan base of the team has already embraced it and accepted it as an upgrade, i suppose they should go back to burn... i'm sure it means more to you guys than the people who actually go to the games

I don't like the name Burn myself, but at least I'm used to it like the New England Revolution, Galaxy, Crew and the MetroStars. Team names should allow people to easily recoginse the team/city/sport. When I hear "Burn" in a sports sense, I do think Dallas Burn soccer.

[Brian in Boston]

Celtic of Foxboro

Chicago Saint-Germain

Club Deportivo Chivas USA

DC United

Dynamo Columbus

FC Dallas

Hearts of Kansas City

LAjax

MetroCorinthians

ReAL Salt Lake

Shimizu SJ-Pulse

VfB Denver

I've refined my list...

Celtic FC (the FC's for Foxboro Club)

Club Deportivo Chivas USA

Club Social Deportivo Colo-Colorado de Denver

DC United

Dynamo Columbus

FC Dallas

FC MetroRedStar

Heart of Midwest FC

IFK Chicagoteborg

LAjax or LA Galatasaray

ReAL Salt Lake

Shimizu SJ-Pulse

[ReginaCanuck]

Lame, lame, lame.  "Real" Madrid works because there's a freaking monarchy in Spain.  There's nothing "royal" about soccer in Utah.  Mother:censored:ing poseurs. 

Again, may I ask what is so royal about LA or Sacramento? Or Kansas City for that matter?

Well, you're talking about mascots or nicknames. In general, football players aren't literally "Eagles," nor baseball players "Tigers," nor basketball players "Kings." It's a conceit we've come to allow.

In the rest of the world, clubs have names that generally don't include nicknames. As I understand it, the "Real" in Real Madrid doesn't suggest that the players are royal, or Royals, or Kings...but rather that the club is (or was) affiliated w/ the monarchy.

Calling the new MLS club ReAL Salt Lake attempts to borrow from that tradition. But the name doesn't fit w/ the American mascots/nicknames format, nor the European royal affliliation. It's not a mascot. It's not a nickname. It doesn't enjoy sponsorship by a monarchy. And consequently, it doesn't make sense.

Ok, well answer me this. Were there ever any Wizards in Kansas City (their MLS team)? Or a MetroStar in New York/Jersey (their MLS team?) Or how about the fact that Washington DC borrowed its name from the Manchester United? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't work.

I'm recognizing two historic naming traditions.

1. In the United States, we pair cities (Kansas City) w/ nicknames and/or mascots (Wizards). The nicknames don't always make sense -- what's a MetroStar? who is a Magic? -- but the format doesn't require logic.

2. In the rest of the world, they simply use the name of a city (Barcelona) or a club (Hearts). Sometimes they will attach a designation, like "Chelsea FC" (for Football Club) or "Manchester United" (indicating an attempt to unify supporters from across a city) or "Real Madrid" (indicating royal sponsorship). Generally speaking, there is some logical relationship between the club and the designation.

Real Madrid is in the global tradition, w/ the name of the city, a designation, and no mascot. Use of the word "Real" makes sense in this context because the club in fact has a history of affiliation w/ Spanish royalty.

ReAL Salt Lake fits in neither the American nor the international tradition. "ReAL" is neither a mascot nor a nickname. It's an attempt to affix a designation, but the designation does not make sense -- because there is no royalty in Salt Lake City to sponsor the club. It would make as much sense to affix "FC" (for Football Club) to a baseball team. Anaheim Angels FC. Wha? There's no relationship. The name does not fit.

I agree.

Except: United signifies that two clubs were amalgamated into one. (I'm pretty sure)

[Cashcleaner]

I agree.

Except: United signifies that two clubs were amalgamated into one. (I'm pretty sure)

That's usually how it goes in Europe. Though Man United used to be called Newton Heath LYR (Lancashire Yorkshire Railway). I don't know if another club amalgamated, but that's usually the case. Oh, I don't think Dundee United did either, but I can't be sure.

[IceCap]

1. In the United States, we pair cities w/ nicknames and/or mascots...

2. In the rest of the world, they simply use the name of a city...or a club...

have u seen some of the names in canadian socce? its even chessier then the mls.

montreal force=lame nickname.

as for the ReAL Salt Lake name, come to think of it, it is stupid, considering there is no monarchy to be affiliated with salt lake city. i do believe they should have a traditional soccer name though. why not just "salt lake"? it's like "liverpool". just the name of the city.

if any city in north america that can have a soccer team called "real" it's ottawa. ottawa, being the capital of canada, has an association with the british monarchy since canada is a member of the british commonwealth.

[erikstoll]

i dig it, alot, i might have to take the trek over ot see a game

[Cashcleaner]

You know, despite how this thread has been going and whanot, I still would like to say that I do indeed appreciate the simplified naming convention some North American cities are using for their soccer/football teams. Don't get me wrong, I think it's sheer idiocy to call a team Real Salt Lake or even FC Dallas. That said though, I got no problem with DC United or anything along those lines. It's a shame MSL didn't stick to the more traditional (but still reasonable) convention of naming the team soely after the city, and nothing else (no magic, bears, waffle irons, etc.).

I think the real shame (no pun inteneded) is that Salt Lake has a rather nice logo and crest in my opinion, just a silly name.

[Blackjack76]

Anyone have access to ReAL's logos in vector format? I don't feel like recreating the letters at all.

[Sean84106]

But we're not talking about Euro soccer, we're talking about US soccer. So it's fine for US soccer.

[MJWalker45]

Another reason Salt Lake picked Real Salt Lake is that they are attempting to reach an agreement with Real Madrid. There was a short article in yesterday's LA Times alluding to the reasons behind the name. I think they want to at least see Real take a bigger role in youth player development in the US. I know the mayor of San Antonio was trying to get an English first division side to start an academy here but couldn't come to an agreement. He's a big soccer nut, and he want's Club America to place it's MLS entry here. It's slated to join in 2006, possibly along with Cleveland.