Proposed Seattle MLS Logo & Uniform Designs

[Brian in Boston]

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

Plenty of love, Lee. In my opinion, the Ft. Lauderdale Strikers were another "legacy" NASL franchise. A Major League Soccer expansion franchise in South Florida would do quite well to brand themselves something along the lines of Miami Strikers or South Florida Strikers and don the alternating Red and Yellow hoops.

[Brian in Boston]

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

Yes... and the last time that Seattle played host to a MAJOR professional soccer team, said team's name was the Seattle Sounders. Therefore, bringing the brand to MLS provides Seattle soccer history with some wonderful symmetry.

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

Said minor-league soccer team will cease to exist prior to the arrival of a Major League Soccer franchise in Seattle. Therefore, no conflict.

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.

Because, said minor-league team is named in honor of a much-beloved MAJOR professional soccer team that called Seattle home for 10 outdoor and 2 indoor seasons over 10 years. Further, a wholly new brand would not solely represent MAJOR professional soccer in Seattle, as the original Sounders played in the NASL - the highest level of MAJOR professional soccer in North America at the time. Finally, given that the Seattle Sounders brand is synonymous with 24 total outdoor seasons and 2 indoor seasons of soccer over 34 years, as well as 4 championship titles in 7 total trips to league championship games (including this past year's USL-1 title), one can presume that the "preconceived notions of the product" associated with said brand are positive ones. Hence, why bother starting from scratch with a brand which will have no history, sense of tradition or championship cache associated with it?

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

Perhaps. However, why simply discard a brand that has 24 seasons of passion already built-up around it?

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

Your opinion is "shared by many" where exactly? Every poll or discussion I've come across dealing with this subject shows public sentiment to be running HEAVILY in favor of maintaining the Seattle Sounders brand, particularly in the one area it matters most - amongst soccer fans and residents in Greater Seattle.

[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?

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.

The MLS brand will have as much mass appeal as the NHL brand does. A trendy "Euro" team name will not bump it up in stature. The only way it will bump itself up in MASS appeal will be if they upgrade the league's talent. (And no, signing a couple of old vets isn't upgrading your league's general talent). Sounders equals soccer in Seattle. For example, if some lunatic multi-billionaire decided to put a NHL team in Peoria, the team would be called the Rivermen. Yes it's a minor league name, but it is associated with hockey in Peoria. (Much as I'd suspect a future Milwaukee NHL team would still have the Admirals name.)

[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.

The MLS brand will have as much mass appeal as the NHL brand does. A trendy "Euro" team name will not bump it up in stature. The only way it will bump itself up in MASS appeal will be if they upgrade the league's talent. (And no, signing a couple of old vets isn't upgrading your league's general talent). Sounders equals soccer in Seattle. For example, if some lunatic multi-billionaire decided to put a NHL team in Peoria, the team would be called the Rivermen. Yes it's a minor league name, but it is associated with hockey in Peoria. (Much as I'd suspect a future Milwaukee NHL team would still have the Admirals name.)

Hey, I never said that they should go with as you call it "A trendy Euro team name" I just don't think that the Sounders name is the best choice. BTW, Using the letters 'F.C.' doesn't constitute a "trendy Euro name" Its a soccer prefix/suffix used by teams across the world and makes sense for teams in America to use if they so please. Most soccer fans would understand the association and use of the letters without much trepidation.

The strongest name in my opinion would be Seattle F.C. Its simple, distintive enough to let people know where the team is from and what sport they play. Its an instant SOCCER brand, which is why I like it.

I think in the end there are two very good sides to this argument and I think we may have to agree to disagree.

[Delux247]

Absolutely love them all, especially version 1.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The strongest name in my opinion would be Seattle F.C. Its simple, distintive enough to let people know where the team is from and what sport they play. Its an instant SOCCER brand, which is why I like it.

For you maybe. But we really like the Puget Sound here. It's pretty. Lots of people own cabins on the various islands within. There's a connection here to the water and how it surrounds us. "Seattle F.C." does nothing for me, and I've only been here a year. Why choose a name that could easily be used by ANY city in the world? How does that instill local pride?

Sounders wouldn't be thought up today, but it remains perfect anyway. I'm local. I think "Sounders" is perfect and would happily buy a t-shirt with the name across the front. "Seattle F.C.?" No thanks.

[powersurge]

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

Yes... and the last time that Seattle played host to a MAJOR professional soccer team, said team's name was the Seattle Sounders. Therefore, bringing the brand to MLS provides Seattle soccer history with some wonderful symmetry.

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

Said minor-league soccer team will cease to exist prior to the arrival of a Major League Soccer franchise in Seattle. Therefore, no conflict.

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.

Because, said minor-league team is named in honor of a much-beloved MAJOR professional soccer team that called Seattle home for 10 outdoor and 2 indoor seasons over 10 years. Further, a wholly new brand would not solely represent MAJOR professional soccer in Seattle, as the original Sounders played in the NASL - the highest level of MAJOR professional soccer in North America at the time. Finally, given that the Seattle Sounders brand is synonymous with 24 total outdoor seasons and 2 indoor seasons of soccer over 34 years, as well as 4 championship titles in 7 total trips to league championship games (including this past year's USL-1 title), one can presume that the "preconceived notions of the product" associated with said brand are positive ones. Hence, why bother starting from scratch with a brand which will have no history, sense of tradition or championship cache associated with it?

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

Perhaps. However, why simply discard a brand that has 24 seasons of passion already built-up around it?

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

Your opinion is "shared by many" where exactly? Every poll or discussion I've come across dealing with this subject shows public sentiment to be running HEAVILY in favor of maintaining the Seattle Sounders brand, particularly in the one area it matters most - amongst soccer fans and residents in Greater Seattle.

You make great points...but....

1. That MAJOR league team was over twenty years ago, the name is more closely associated with the minor league USL team seeing as its the most recent adaptation. If they want to associate themselves with minor league soccer so be it. I believe going a different route and establishing a new identity that will represent the new era of major league soccer in Seattle for years to come is the most appropriate route.

2. Says who? Just because the team is gone doesn't mean the association won't remain. Again, another reason to start a new identity with no minor league ties. If you advertise the brand as major league even former Sounders soccer fans will come out AND fans who didn't care for the USL and the Sounders but are interested in checking out major pro soccer.

3. There is no doubt the history is there. But whats more important? the fact that soccer is popular in Seattle? or that a minor league team called the Sounders won a bunch of minor league titles and led the league in wins a bunch of times? Sorry, but with an average attendance of between 3,000-6,000 fans I just don't buy the fact that you have to keep around this "sacred" name for people to love your new franchise and come out to watch them. I believe the love for soccer in the area is why they got the MLS expansion team and will be the real determiner if the team succeeds, as opposed to whether or not they associate themselves with the Sounders and their history.

http://www.theoffside.com/leagues/mls/a-se...am-in-2009.html

http://goalseattle.blogspot.com/2007/06/se...uget-sound.html

If they draw between 3,000-5,000 a game in the USL, while MLS teams average well over 10,000 fans will the current attendance figures and HUGE support make them successful in the next level? I think their attendance will eventually be up near the league average, but why? Because of the previous history? or the fact that they will now be in the MLS? People come out to see the top leagues, not the minor leagues. The name means little, good soccer means everything.

4. I touched upon this in #3. Whats more important? The passion that soccer fans in Seattle have for major league SOCCER? or for the 24 year history of the Sounders? We differ on this one. I believe the brand is distinctive enough, but doesn't have strong enough legs over a newer brand specific to major league soccer in promoting the sport in the area. Trust me, if MLS fails in Seattle, it won't be because of whether or not they stuck with the name 'Sounders'

5. Do I have to sit here and name every poster on this board or all of the people I speak to about sports on a daily basis to validate my statement? Please, don't take that argument. I was merely saying that I wasn't the ONLY guy that believes that Sounders is a poor name. They can do MUCH better. Just because you have a crappy name for over twenty years doesn't make it good.

[Needschat]

WHY?

Why should the team have a Euro-centric name? Why can't it be branded the Sounders?

I don't understand all the "traditionalist" talk: MLS MUST have Euro and World centric names in order for the league to survive. Balderdash!!

The team SHOULD be named The Seattle Sounders. The name HAS an identity in the community, not only in the Pacific Northwest but in the world soccer community. Only a few names from the old NASL have that distinction: Sounders, Timbers, Cosmos, Rowdies, Earthquakes, Sockers...amongst others.

And if we are on this traditionalist kick, remember, there was a DENVER AVALANCHE waaaay before the Colorado Avalanche.

[Gothamite]

(Much as I'd suspect a future Milwaukee NHL team would still have the Admirals name.)

Hey, we can hope....

I like new teams adoping names that are traditional to the city. Good for them.

[StoneRaizer]

This thread was a great education piece on the history of the Seattle Sounders name, and if (when?) they get a team, the Sounders name must be used. I felt the same way when Toronto's MLS expansion team was announced and I felt it had to be called the Toronto Blizzard because of the history of Blizzard soccer in Toronto. When they came out with Toronto FC I wanted to smack someone upside the head for basically flipping the bird at tradition.

Back on topic to the original...

#1. Love the colours. Sky blue, emerald green and forest green scream Seattle and the kids look very sharp. However I can't stand the logo for two reasons: the oval shape reminds me of a rugby ball yet this is a soccer team, and 2. at the bottom the shield that has the space needle in it is almost identical to the new Colorado Rapids logo.

2. Great logo and I love orange in a soccer kit for whatever reason, I just do. But after reading the history about the Sounders and their light blue/green combination the logo and uniforms must be that colour combination.

3. Simplicity at its finest, but no light blue. In a strange twist the kits actually kinda remind me of the NFL's Philadelphia Eagles. Don't ask how I connect a soccer kit with a football jersey because I don't know either, it's just that was what I noticed. Emerald City FC is a cool name, but how well known is Seattle's nickname? When people outside of Seattle see "Emerald City" do they automatically think of Seattle the same way Pittsburgh is known as The Steel City?

4. FC Seattle Sounders 74? Whew there's a mouthful. There's at least four possible nicknames in there - FC Seattle, Seattle FC, Seattle Sounders, Seattle 74... Logo itself is good because it looks like a soccer crest but I don't understand why there's a woman's face in the logo. The blue in the logo is too bright also, almost looks like turquoise.

Best thing to do would be to use the colour scheme and uniforms from #1, the logo from #2 and call the team the Seattle Sounders, or at least Seattle Sounders FC.