Proposed Seattle MLS Logo & Uniform Designs

[-kj]

MLS will go nowhere if they keep trying to do things the "American" way, including team names. They need to do everything that leagues like the EPL and La Liga do.

Not to mention, tradition or not, Sounders is such a ridiculously bad name. We get it, you're by Puget Sound, you don't need to name a soccer team that.

My point exactly...:censored: tradition, it's a stupid name.

Well, then, I think Patriots is a stupid name. Let's change that, too.

[leopard88]

MLS will go nowhere if they keep trying to do things the "American" way, including team names. They need to do everything that leagues like the EPL and La Liga do.

Not to mention, tradition or not, Sounders is such a ridiculously bad name. We get it, you're by Puget Sound, you don't need to name a soccer team that.

My point exactly...:censored: tradition, it's a stupid name.

Well, then, I think Patriots is a stupid name. Let's change that, too.

Stick with "I think Red Sox is a stupid name." You'll have an easier argument.

[Brian in Boston]

Just want to be sure where you're coming from: are you equating "soccer purists" with "poseurs"?

No. In fact, it strikes me that the vast majority of soccer supporters I would identify as "purists" don't give a damn how soccer teams are branded. Oh, if pressed, they might well prefer so-called international-style team names to North American-style monikers. That said, they are far more concerned with the quality of play on the pitch, the quality of player on the roster and the details of in-stadium atmosphere. I believe these purists to be - first and foremost - fans of foreign-based club sides, because that is where they find the combination of quality match-play, athletic talent and stadium atmosphere that they consider to be emblematic of top-flight professional soccer. As a result, I think these purists will remain impervious to the charms of Major League Soccer's brand of football regardless of what the circuit's member-franchises are named.

On the other hand, I would identify "poseurs" as those soccer fans who subscribe to certain beliefs about "the beautiful game" - including team branding - without even really knowing why. Primarily, they form their opinions based upon the idea that if something soccer-related is done a certain way in one of the sport's "traditional", international hot-beds, than it must be done that way everywhere. Now, while I would agree that North American professional soccer must play by the same on-field laws that are used globally and should also aspire to the same quality of match-play, athletic talent and general in-stadium gameday atmosphere as that which is on display in the sport's traditional hotbeds, I don't think it necessarily follows that the future success of the sport in the United States and Canada hangs upon the branding of our teams. In contrast, "poseurs" often behave as if they are convinced that a significant portion of responsibility for the demise of the NASL, as well as the early struggles of MLS, were the result of North American pro teams having carried names such as San Diego Sockers and Tampa Bay Mutiny. They'd have us believe that simply by branding MLS teams with names such as FC Dallas and Toronto FC that the league's future success is assured. Rubbish!

Further, the idea some "poseurs" have that Major League Soccer's recent move towards "traditional" team branding is an indication that the league is shifting it's marketing focus to the "traditional soccer fan" and away from the "Soccer Mom" family crowd is a fallacy. MLS is never going to abandon the "Soccer Mom" demographic. As a niche sport looking to maximize it's market share, it can't afford to. Moving forward, MLS is going to make every effort to accomodate as many market segments as possible. The future of the league is to take a page out of DC United's book and simultaneously cater to both "traditional" soccer die-hards and family crowds. It will be done by dedicating specific (and, where possible, non-adjacent) sections of stadium seating to each target audience. It will be done by tailoring specific, differing advertising camapigns to each market segment.

And while we're on the subject of MLS team branding, I'd like to address the assenine argument I see from time to time that seeks to correlate Major League Soccer's early struggles - particularly, the failure of certain franchises - to the fact that the league's franchises were branded in accordance with the North American style. That's a fallacy.

For example, let's take a look at a team that is often offered up as the "poster franchise" for what poor branding did to MLS: the Tampa Bay Mutiny. The Mutiny name - in and of itself - wasn't bad. Granted, Tampa Bay Rowdies would have resonated in the marketplace to a much greater degree. The Tampa Bay Mutiny logo was atrocious, as was the strained explanation behind the name and logo. The team's uniforms, as was the case with nearly all of the league's original kits, were horrible (true of almost each and every one of the league's original kits). Still, the failure of the Mutiny was not due to branding issues. The demise of the Mutiny was due to the fact that a local investor/operator could not be found for the club, which made marketing the team locally that much more difficult. Whether named the Tampa Bay Mutiny, Tampa Bay Rowdies or Tampa Bay FC, the franchise would have struggled without a local investor/operator. End of story.

Was allowing league partner NIKE to play such a significant role in the development of team names and logos a mistake? Yes, in retrospect it is hard to say otherwise. They took too many of the teams in the direction of "Gen-Y", "edgy for edgy's sake" branding. Frankly, while the results of NIKE's efforts certainly weren't "traditional international soccer brands", it can be argued that they didn't really conform to the North American-style team-naming tradition, either. With few exceptions, they were a rather unfortunate sports branding subset unto themselves.

Bottom line? There is absolutely no reason that Major League Soccer shouldn't strive to move forward embracing a variety of team-branding traditions. Some teams can be branded according to so-called "traditional" international parameters. Others can be branded according to North American pro sports traditions. Still others may well follow the lead of Red Bull New York/New York Red Bulls and adopt the name of a corporate parent. So be it. One of the reasons for soccer's enormous popularity on a global scale is that various countries and cultures have brought their own unique twists and influences to the sport's on-field, in-game tactical play. There is no reason that the branding of soccer teams shouldn't reflect that same sort of diversity.

[-kj]

Tonight, it's the Wiz and the Burn!

Sorry, I had to.

[McCall]

Tonight, it's the Wiz and the Burn!

Sorry, I had to.

Ouch. Power of Suggestion.

[powersurge]

MLS will go nowhere if they keep trying to do things the "American" way, including team names. They need to do everything that leagues like the EPL and La Liga do.

Not to mention, tradition or not, Sounders is such a ridiculously bad name. We get it, you're by Puget Sound, you don't need to name a soccer team that.

My point exactly...:censored: tradition, it's a stupid name.

Well, I wouldn't say it quite that way even though I completely agree with you.

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

[leopard88]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

As for your presumably facetious suggestions, I don't think there is any groundswell of support for the Drillers or Tea Men. However, I suspect there are a lot of Tampa area fans who would love to see the return of the Rowdies.

[rams80]

MLS will go nowhere if they keep trying to do things the "American" way, including team names. They need to do everything that leagues like the EPL and La Liga do.

Not to mention, tradition or not, Sounders is such a ridiculously bad name. We get it, you're by Puget Sound, you don't need to name a soccer team that.

My point exactly...:censored: tradition, it's a stupid name.

You know...in cases such as these, if you think something is stupid, that's probably a strong indication that it's actually a good idea.

But Red Sox and Revolution are stupid names. They should change.

[Sodboy13]

Tonight, it's the Wiz and the Burn!

I had that once. Antibiotics, two weeks, cleared right up.

[Brian in Boston]

Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers?

Drillers? No. Should Tulsa ever find itself playing host to a Major League Soccer franchise, the team's name would have to be the Tulsa Roughnecks.

How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies?

Absolutely. One of the most iconic brands created for a team in the North American Soccer League. I can still see the Rowdies taking the field in uniforms featuring their trademark Green-and-Yellow hooped sleeves and socks.

... or Boston Tea Men?

No. New England Tea Men. A team identity that worked on a couple of levels: Thomas J. Lipton Company owned the franchise and, of course, the Boston Tea Party played an integral part in communicating the dissatisfaction of the American colonies with the absentee rule of the British monarchy. I loved the home jersey of the Tea Men, with the large, torso-sized Red/Orange "T" on a Gold backround.

[Brian in Boston]

But Red Sox and Revolution are stupid names. They should change.

No chance... you know that.

Red Sox is one of the most traditional names in all of Major League Baseball. As for the Revolution, in my opinion, their name - along with those of the Colorado Rapids and DC United - were amongst the "Top Three" brands initially unveiled by Major League Soccer.

[leopard88]

... or Boston Tea Men?

No. New England Tea Men. A team identity that worked on a couple of levels: Thomas J. Lipton Company owned the franchise and, of course, the Boston Tea Party played an integral part in communicating the dissatisfaction of the American colonies with the absentee rule of the British monarchy. I loved the home jersey of the Tea Men, with the large, torso-sized Red/Orange "T" on a Gold backround.

How about the Jacksonville Tea Men?

[Gothamite]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

Exactly.

Why do they need "a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand"?

[powersurge]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

As for your presumably facetious suggestions, I don't think there is any groundswell of support for the Drillers or Tea Men. However, I suspect there are a lot of Tampa area fans who would love to see the return of the Rowdies.

All of the teams you mentioned are from extremely popular/major sports in America. The issue with the Seattle team, as well as the other teams in the MLS is not only the challenge of establishing a brand in the local area but trying to successfully promote the game of soccer to a mass audience. American Sports enthusiasts are already overly engorged to the point of nausea from the overlapping four major sports seasons that trying to jam in another major sport is a very tough challenge.

[Lee.]

What, no love for the Ft Lauderdale Strikers? bastards.

[rams80]

But Red Sox and Revolution are stupid names. They should change.

No chance... you know that.

Red Sox is one of the most traditional names in all of Major League Baseball. As for the Revolution, in my opinion, their name - along with those of the Colorado Rapids and DC United - were amongst the "Top Three" brands initially unveiled by Major League Soccer.

I was being sarcastic to prove a point.

It's a different sport, but one of the lessons of the Peoria Rough Riders fiasco was that indoor football in Peoria can only have one name, and that name is the Peoria Pirates.

[rams80]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

As for your presumably facetious suggestions, I don't think there is any groundswell of support for the Drillers or Tea Men. However, I suspect there are a lot of Tampa area fans who would love to see the return of the Rowdies.

All of the teams you mentioned are from extremely popular/major sports in America. The issue with the Seattle team, as well as the other teams in the MLS is not only the challenge of establishing a brand in the local area but trying to successfully promote the game of soccer to a mass audience. American Sports enthusiasts are already overly engorged to the point of nausea from the overlapping four major sports seasons that trying to jam in another major sport is a very tough challenge.

Why does every team in the MLS need to draw upon mass appeal across the country? Why do they need a national brand? Why can't they just content themselves with the local crowd, since they's the folks who are going to buy the tickets and make or break your franchise anyway?

[powersurge]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

Exactly.

Why do they need "a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand"?

1. First time in over twenty years that they are actually playing MAJOR LEAGUE soccer in Seattle

2. The name is already taken by a current MINOR LEAGUE soccer team in Seattle

3. Why take the name of a current minor league team when you can create a new one that will solely represent MAJOR LEAGUE soccer in Seattle and start fresh without any preconceived notions of the product? hence, starting from scratch.

4. If people are so passionate about soccer in Seattle they'll go watch a team named something OTHER than the Sounders regardless.

5. Old name just isn't very good (my opinion of course, but an opinion shared by many)

[powersurge]

Basically it seems that the ownership wants to capitalize on the history of the name and recognizable Seattle area soccer brand. Problem is that its not always the best idea to re-use a name, especially if its been used in a minor league capacity to promote a major league franchise. There have been some examples of current teams borrowing their name from former minor league teams or other previous sports franchises (1st that comes to mind are the Colorado Rockies) but I think the Seattle ownership group is blowing a perfect chance to start from scratch with a new name and new brand to promote higher level soccer. We are far removed from the NASL, and taking a pretty much mundane nickname from a USL team doesn't make much sense to me. Whats next? Bringing back the Tulsa Drillers? How about the Tampa Bay Rowdies? or Boston Tea Men?

Bad call on their part IMO.

This subject really should be decided on a case-by-case basis, because the situation varies from sport to sport and from city to city. The Baltimore Orioles, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres, Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Bengals all adopted names of minor league and/or defunct teams with a great deal of success. I can't speak for the depth of passion for the name in Seattle, but if it is as strong as it appears from this thread, it is hard to criticize the owners for responding to those feelings.

As for your presumably facetious suggestions, I don't think there is any groundswell of support for the Drillers or Tea Men. However, I suspect there are a lot of Tampa area fans who would love to see the return of the Rowdies.

All of the teams you mentioned are from extremely popular/major sports in America. The issue with the Seattle team, as well as the other teams in the MLS is not only the challenge of establishing a brand in the local area but trying to successfully promote the game of soccer to a mass audience. American Sports enthusiasts are already overly engorged to the point of nausea from the overlapping four major sports seasons that trying to jam in another major sport is a very tough challenge.

Why does every team in the MLS need to draw upon mass appeal across the country? Why do they need a national brand? Why can't they just content themselves with the local crowd, since they's the folks who are going to buy the tickets and make or break your franchise anyway?

You apparently you are not getting what I'm saying. Yes, the teams are promoting LOCALLY, but all of the teams which comprise MLS are still promoting the brand to a NATIONAL audience. The Seattle team will have nationally televised games on major networks so thats what I mean about MASS appeal. I just don't think the Sounders name is the best choice for that. They should go another direction, as opposed to trying to rekindle the local name and try to drag it out even further.

[Brian in Boston]

How about the Jacksonville Tea Men?

At least initially, still owned by Thomas J. Lipton Company. Still, without the additional Boston Tea Party tie-in, not so hot an identity package.