The FC in America

[Saturn]

Yeah, but it isn't grammatically correct in english.

It's European-style, therefore it is automatically superior to the pottage that is North American styles of naming professional sports teams, and should not be questioned. Rather simple logic, really...

K

[powersurge]

I'm not sure if many of the non-soccer fans on this board realize that team nicknames are actually just as important to soccer clubs around the world as it is with American sports franchises. For example, the majority of teams in the Portuguese First Division Soccer league have nicknames like Eagles, Dragons, Lions, etc. They don't generally put the nicknames on the jerseys in favor of corporate sponsors.

[VitaminD]

I'm not sure if many of the non-soccer fans on this board realize that team nicknames are actually just as important to soccer clubs around the world as it is with American sports franchises. For example, the majority of teams in the Portuguese First Division Soccer league have nicknames like Eagles, Dragons, Lions, etc. They don't generally put the nicknames on the jerseys in favor of corporate sponsors.

As do most of the EPL teams. Without fully researching it, I'd be willing to bet most Euro soccer teams have nicknames. The differences between their nicknames and American sports team names are that most of these clubs have been around longer than most American sports teams (with some notable exceptions, of course). The team had a chance to grow and evolve and attract a loyal fan base in the years before sports became entertainment, and financially lucrative.

The clubs were formed with no nickname in mind, and the nicknames evolved over time. Nicknames were conferred because of uniform colors, where they played, or perhaps a certain playing style that appealed to the locals. Bottom line, the nicknames were never formalized; they just sorta happened. (The same can be said of the Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds [named for their socks], Philadelphia Phillies [named for their city], Detroit Tigers [named for their uniform colors] and some of the older sports teams.) Today, with so much money available, teams won't leave something as important as brand identity to chance, or to the decades it takes to establish a team in leagues populated by teams whose roots go back to the 19th century. It's easier to force a nickname upon a team through focus groups and rigged polls.

Another factor borne of the age of some of the clubs is the idea of provincialism. In smaller European countries, athletic clubs were a social organization for a given neighborhood or area. As such, the local soccer team became your team because you worked and lived with the people in the club; you may be a member yourself. As such, the clubs had a built-in fan base. In the era before telephones, television, the internet and the automobile, people didn't migrate far beyond their hometown or region. People didn't follow teams in other parts of the country because they had their local side. These teams weren't a threat to move, as it was a neighborhood club - so the team and fans developed a mutual relationship spanning generations. The upshot of that is people identify with the club/city/neighborhood name as a part of their identity; they may not play for Arsenal's soccer team, but they live in the neighborhood and may even work at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. In short, that was their club. That simply can't happen today; pro sports don't arise from neighborhoods. People rarely stay in their local neighborhoods any more, and even if they do, they have their choice of teams to follow. They can be exposed to whatever team in whatever league and whatever sport they like, 24/7. So we're stuck with forced nicknames and team branding, for better or for worse.

[LimeGuy]

With 300 million people in the US alone, the legacies of "small franchises" arising are long since gone. No more Green Bay Packers. No more Arsenal. No more Brooklyn Dodgers.

Back to the MLS convo: I'd like them to remove the "East-West" division. Its there for nothing better than "appearance" purposes anyway, why keep it? Having one large "table" like the Euro clubs would be a better way to go.

And to head off the other reason for divisions in MLS, seed the playoff teams from the entire league rather than divisions. I've always hated divisions (in all sports) because it limits the two best teams meeting (guaranteed meeting, that is). For example, how many times did the best two NFL teams meet in either an AFC or NFC Championship? Plenty. I want the best vs. the best, not the best "of these teams" vs. the best "of these other teams."

[Gothamite]

Back to the MLS convo: I'd like them to remove the "East-West" division. Its there for nothing better than "appearance" purposes anyway, why keep it? Having one large "table" like the Euro clubs would be a better way to go.

Agreed.

It has been reported (World Soccer Daily, among other places) that MLS are considering this. Hope they're right.

[powersurge]

I'm not sure if many of the non-soccer fans on this board realize that team nicknames are actually just as important to soccer clubs around the world as it is with American sports franchises. For example, the majority of teams in the Portuguese First Division Soccer league have nicknames like Eagles, Dragons, Lions, etc. They don't generally put the nicknames on the jerseys in favor of corporate sponsors.

As do most of the EPL teams. Without fully researching it, I'd be willing to bet most Euro soccer teams have nicknames. The differences between their nicknames and American sports team names are that most of these clubs have been around longer than most American sports teams (with some notable exceptions, of course). The team had a chance to grow and evolve and attract a loyal fan base in the years before sports became entertainment, and financially lucrative.

The clubs were formed with no nickname in mind, and the nicknames evolved over time. Nicknames were conferred because of uniform colors, where they played, or perhaps a certain playing style that appealed to the locals. Bottom line, the nicknames were never formalized; they just sorta happened. (The same can be said of the Boston Red Sox, Cincinnati Reds [named for their socks], Philadelphia Phillies [named for their city], Detroit Tigers [named for their uniform colors] and some of the older sports teams.) Today, with so much money available, teams won't leave something as important as brand identity to chance, or to the decades it takes to establish a team in leagues populated by teams whose roots go back to the 19th century. It's easier to force a nickname upon a team through focus groups and rigged polls.

Another factor borne of the age of some of the clubs is the idea of provincialism. In smaller European countries, athletic clubs were a social organization for a given neighborhood or area. As such, the local soccer team became your team because you worked and lived with the people in the club; you may be a member yourself. As such, the clubs had a built-in fan base. In the era before telephones, television, the internet and the automobile, people didn't migrate far beyond their hometown or region. People didn't follow teams in other parts of the country because they had their local side. These teams weren't a threat to move, as it was a neighborhood club - so the team and fans developed a mutual relationship spanning generations. The upshot of that is people identify with the club/city/neighborhood name as a part of their identity; they may not play for Arsenal's soccer team, but they live in the neighborhood and may even work at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. In short, that was their club. That simply can't happen today; pro sports don't arise from neighborhoods. People rarely stay in their local neighborhoods any more, and even if they do, they have their choice of teams to follow. They can be exposed to whatever team in whatever league and whatever sport they like, 24/7. So we're stuck with forced nicknames and team branding, for better or for worse.

Not bad for someone who didn't 'fully research it'