Jump to content

A quick question about Chivas


BigRed618

Recommended Posts

I started following MLS about five years ago, so understandably, I was a bit confused about the team CD Chivas USA. Where do they play? What does the name mean? Eventually I got answers to both those questions. They play in LA, and in the same stadium as Galaxy. They were named after the Mexican team CD Guadalajara, also known as the Chivas. Perhaps they were named to appeal to SoCal's Hispanic community, but I digress. My biggest question right now is why name them that? What's the connection between Chivas USA and Guadalajara?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started following MLS about five years ago, so understandably, I was a bit confused about the team CD Chivas USA. Where do they play? What does the name mean? Eventually I got answers to both those questions. They play in LA, and in the same stadium as Galaxy. They were named after the Mexican team CD Guadalajara, also known as the Chivas. Perhaps they were named to appeal to SoCal's Hispanic community, but I digress. My biggest question right now is why name them that? What's the connection between Chivas USA and Guadalajara?

They play in Carson, CA and share the Home Depot Center with LA Galaxy. Chivas is one of the most popular (and successful) clubs in Mexico. The idea was to appeal to those fans, hence the otherwise clumsy name to the American fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viper and Omnivore are both right. The idea was to capitalize on both the Hispanic demographic in SoCal and the popularity of CD Guadalajara and to act as a sister club to CD Guadalajara. There's been a lot of debate as to whether that was a wise move from a marketing standpoint. It's a tough brand to push the casual soccer fan and not all fans of the Mexican Futbol in the US are Guadalajara fans. There are always forums running on BigSoccer calling for rebranding the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viper and Omnivore are both right. The idea was to capitalize on both the Hispanic demographic in SoCal and the popularity of CD Guadalajara and to act as a sister club to CD Guadalajara. There's been a lot of debate as to whether that was a wise move from a marketing standpoint. It's a tough brand to push the casual soccer fan and not all fans of the Mexican Futbol in the US are Guadalajara fans. There are always forums running on BigSoccer calling for rebranding the team.

I've always liked the idea of reviving the old LA Aztecs name. It would still allude to the Hispanic community while embracing the history of pro soccer in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vergara assumed that all/most of the Mexican fans in SoCal would follow Chivas USA just because of the name. Not all Mexican fans that follow Mexican football are CD Guadalajara fans, and those that are will not follow any other team including Chivas USA. The low attendance alone should should be an indicator to Vergara, but I guess the sponsorship money will always come first. This is why Vergara will never rebrand the club, hence the identical logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. There are still many communities and many people in Mexico who speak Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, and who are very proud of the Aztec and other mesoamerican cultures. The Aztecs did not disappear, just like the Navajo or Cherokee did not disappear, simply their power, their empire disappeared.

Also, just for factual sake, there really were no people called the Aztecs, their name for themselves was the "Mexica". That is where the name Mexico comes from. And they didn't die out "thousands of years ago", the conquest of Mexico by Cortés was in the early 1500's, the 500th anniversary is coming up in the next decade (and will be very controversial, just like the 500th anniversary of Columbus was.)

Finally, using the name for sports teams is controversial. Look at the history of San Diego State athletics and every time they develop a new mascot or logo it is either because of student protests (typically hispanic/chicano student protests) about the older logo/mascot or an attempt to create a more dignified one. That is why they don't use a person-based logo as much as the spear/shield logo. It is less offensive.

Aztecs is perhaps not as controversial as Indians or Redskins, but it is not PC in many circles.

But none of this really matters since what the owner of Chivas USA is trying to do is to unite the U.S. Chicano population under his team identity, perhaps in the hope that they, and their families, will feel connected to CD Guadalajara (the original Chivas) and that will give CD Guadalajara an advantage in marketing, fanbase, etc. over rivals in the Mexican league like América. My guess is it has more to do with CD Guadalajara's popularity than Chivas USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Aztecs name funny tho this is not derogatory to the PCers but Indians is?

I think it the Indian logo they've used for many years is the offensive part.

Compare this...

yfsrw9f7hwidwhqy9yg1ftpl7.gif

To this...

2zajvudf2iq448rvq41bpbxmy.gif

Which is more derogatory? just sayin'

Now back to the topic, Chivas name = $$$$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually a staunch defender of non-American soccer names (Real, FC, etc.), but for some reason "Chivas USA" has always bugged the hell out of me. "Chivas California" or "Chivas LA" would be fine with me, but I don't like the USA part with it. I couldn't tell you why, it just bugs me. As it is, I think Chivas USA is the dumbest name in the MLS.

I know I'll get alot of "but yet you're a defender of Real Salt Lake??" (if not said then at least thought), but that's just how it is for me.

EDIT: With the recent NASL-identity revivals by Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland, I got to thinking: if Chivas ever were to change owners and rebrand, how cool would it be to see a California Surf revival? I'd love to see the Aztecs too, but I think the Surf would be pretty neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Aztec is kind of gentilic, Indian no. That is why IMHO "Aztecs" isn't derogator, polemic.

Supporting the Aztecs is like rooting for the "Gauchos" of Argentina giving you an fictious example. It's more focussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. There are still many communities and many people in Mexico who speak Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs, and who are very proud of the Aztec and other mesoamerican cultures. The Aztecs did not disappear, just like the Navajo or Cherokee did not disappear, simply their power, their empire disappeared.

Also, just for factual sake, there really were no people called the Aztecs, their name for themselves was the "Mexica". That is where the name Mexico comes from. And they didn't die out "thousands of years ago", the conquest of Mexico by Cortés was in the early 1500's, the 500th anniversary is coming up in the next decade (and will be very controversial, just like the 500th anniversary of Columbus was.)

Finally, using the name for sports teams is controversial. Look at the history of San Diego State athletics and every time they develop a new mascot or logo it is either because of student protests (typically hispanic/chicano student protests) about the older logo/mascot or an attempt to create a more dignified one. That is why they don't use a person-based logo as much as the spear/shield logo. It is less offensive.

Aztecs is perhaps not as controversial as Indians or Redskins, but it is not PC in many circles.

But none of this really matters since what the owner of Chivas USA is trying to do is to unite the U.S. Chicano population under his team identity, perhaps in the hope that they, and their families, will feel connected to CD Guadalajara (the original Chivas) and that will give CD Guadalajara an advantage in marketing, fanbase, etc. over rivals in the Mexican league like América. My guess is it has more to do with CD Guadalajara's popularity than Chivas USA.

sorry about that,the australian school system seem to have failed me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually a staunch defender of non-American soccer names (Real, FC, etc.), but for some reason "Chivas USA" has always bugged the hell out of me. "Chivas California" or "Chivas LA" would be fine with me, but I don't like the USA part with it. I couldn't tell you why, it just bugs me. As it is, I think Chivas USA is the dumbest name in the MLS.

I know I'll get alot of "but yet you're a defender of Real Salt Lake??" (if not said then at least thought), but that's just how it is for me.

EDIT: With the recent NASL-identity revivals by Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland, I got to thinking: if Chivas ever were to change owners and rebrand, how cool would it be to see a California Surf revival? I'd love to see the Aztecs too, but I think the Surf would be pretty neat.

The thing with Vancouver, Seattle and, Portland is that all teams continued (in one for or another) to exist as soccer clubs under their NASL nicknames in lower tiers soccer. To revive the LA Aztecs or Surf (as much as I think the names are cool) doesn't have the same impact as those teams disappeared after the NASL. I know it hasn't been confirmed yet, but I'm certain Montreal will be the Impact when they are added to MLS and that much like Vancouver, Portland and, Seattle is more like a club being promoted. Much like if N.Y. cosmos get added to MLS a name change in LA would seem more like a marketing move and less genuine (for a lack of a better word).

With that said, I realize what I just said is probably only my opinion, but I just think re-hashing the names of failed franchises isn't smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually a staunch defender of non-American soccer names (Real, FC, etc.), but for some reason "Chivas USA" has always bugged the hell out of me. "Chivas California" or "Chivas LA" would be fine with me, but I don't like the USA part with it. I couldn't tell you why, it just bugs me. As it is, I think Chivas USA is the dumbest name in the MLS.

I know I'll get alot of "but yet you're a defender of Real Salt Lake??" (if not said then at least thought), but that's just how it is for me.

EDIT: With the recent NASL-identity revivals by Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland, I got to thinking: if Chivas ever were to change owners and rebrand, how cool would it be to see a California Surf revival? I'd love to see the Aztecs too, but I think the Surf would be pretty neat.

The thing with Vancouver, Seattle and, Portland is that all teams continued (in one for or another) to exist as soccer clubs under their NASL nicknames in lower tiers soccer. To revive the LA Aztecs or Surf (as much as I think the names are cool) doesn't have the same impact as those teams disappeared after the NASL. I know it hasn't been confirmed yet, but I'm certain Montreal will be the Impact when they are added to MLS and that much like Vancouver, Portland and, Seattle is more like a club being promoted. Much like if N.Y. cosmos get added to MLS a name change in LA would seem more like a marketing move and less genuine (for a lack of a better word).

With that said, I realize what I just said is probably only my opinion, but I just think re-hashing the names of failed franchises isn't smart.

Oh yeah I understand the differences and everything, I was just saying that if Chivas were ever in the position to rebrand, I think the Surf identity would be something they should look at. It's just my personal opinion, though. (I do wish Chivas would at least consider dropping the "USA" and replacing it with "California" or "LA", though. As I said before, for some reason "Chivas USA" just really bugs me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm usually a staunch defender of non-American soccer names (Real, FC, etc.), but for some reason "Chivas USA" has always bugged the hell out of me. "Chivas California" or "Chivas LA" would be fine with me, but I don't like the USA part with it. I couldn't tell you why, it just bugs me. As it is, I think Chivas USA is the dumbest name in the MLS.

I know I'll get alot of "but yet you're a defender of Real Salt Lake??" (if not said then at least thought), but that's just how it is for me.

EDIT: With the recent NASL-identity revivals by Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland, I got to thinking: if Chivas ever were to change owners and rebrand, how cool would it be to see a California Surf revival? I'd love to see the Aztecs too, but I think the Surf would be pretty neat.

The thing with Vancouver, Seattle and, Portland is that all teams continued (in one for or another) to exist as soccer clubs under their NASL nicknames in lower tiers soccer. To revive the LA Aztecs or Surf (as much as I think the names are cool) doesn't have the same impact as those teams disappeared after the NASL. I know it hasn't been confirmed yet, but I'm certain Montreal will be the Impact when they are added to MLS and that much like Vancouver, Portland and, Seattle is more like a club being promoted. Much like if N.Y. cosmos get added to MLS a name change in LA would seem more like a marketing move and less genuine (for a lack of a better word).

With that said, I realize what I just said is probably only my opinion, but I just think re-hashing the names of failed franchises isn't smart.

Oh yeah I understand the differences and everything, I was just saying that if Chivas were ever in the position to rebrand, I think the Surf identity would be something they should look at. It's just my personal opinion, though. (I do wish Chivas would at least consider dropping the "USA" and replacing it with "California" or "LA", though. As I said before, for some reason "Chivas USA" just really bugs me)

I hear you.

When I see you type out "Chivas LA" I like that a lot better too. Just looks better on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.