NYC FC Branding

[dabest13]

Will New York fans refer to their team as City FC? Let's go City? "Did you watch the City FC game yesterday?" I couldn't tell you.

While "City" is the most obvious nickname in the running, I hope fans and media can come up with some more creative alternatives as well...

The problem is I can't think of a single example of a unique nickname developing organically at a North American club to date. Maybe it just takes more.

For example, in the case of Toronto FC, the most common nickname used to date is the Reds. Pretty boring and generic if you ask me, and while I'm not completely sure of where it developed, I believe the club was using it as a nickname from very early on, so it may not have even come from the supporters.

In general I'm a fan of the way MLS does it, a hodge podge of American and Euro naming conventions keeps things interesting. I just hope club supporters get a bit more creative with their nicknames over time.

City wouldn't be the worst nickname, but can't we come up with something better? The Boroughs? The Tokens? Big Apples? Something!

For what its worth a good handful of Union fans refer to the team as the "Zolos" from time to time, but that nickname is a bit on the "underground" side of things, so I guess your argument is still valid.... the other main nickname used a bit more widely would be "the U", but yeah, thats fairly generic as well I guess.... but the point is, more organic nicknames do exist in MLS.

I'm not really a fan of the europoser names, but personally the "City" or in this case you could even make a case for it simply being "FC".. so the name doesn't bother me that much.... at least not when it is compared to Sporting or Real.

[Panthers]

When soccer first started in NYC, there were some ASL teams - mostly semi pro with names like the Ukranians. When the NPSL and USA started, we had the New York Generals and the New York Skyliners. When we got the Cosmos, the name really fit. Cosmos, Mets (and of course we had the Mets, Jets, Sets -[World Team Tennis]). The Cosmos became more than a team to NYC. It was a perfect storm. A soccer boom, social change, the fact that Time Warner owned the team and treated the players like rock stars, etc. So to some, the name Cosmos means more than just a nickname. It holds a unique place in the sports history of this city. The name means something and it means a lot to the game of soccer. If you don't think so, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. The names Sounders and Earthquakes means a great deal to soccer fans in those cities too. It would have been nice to see the new team embrace history, which they did not. I'm not advocating calling them the Cosmos although I would love it.

Man City and the Yankees just appeared one day and said "hey soccer is coming. This is the name of the team. Like us or don't like us." I didn't see a whole lot of "we want to be YOUR team." It's the same situation that plagued the World League. The NFL blew into Frankfurt, London andBarcelona and said "Here's American football. Here are the ticket prices and here is the name of the teams. We're charging you NFL prices because you have the NFL shield behind the league." Epic fail. The NFL had no clue about the culture of those cities, how the game of football had evolved in those cities. The NFL was arrogant about it and they paid for it. I see the same thing happening here.

As for the Dallas Burn, that was one of the worst names I have ever heard. San Jose Clash? Miami Fusion? Tampa Bay Mutiny? Wow. How can you rank those on the scale of bad?

At least the A11 football league did their homework and realized there was still value in the old USFL names and is building on that. The MLS is just a mix of good names and some very bad names. Real Salt Lake? Don't even get me started on that one. The MLS wants to be global. Tell me how many RSL jerseys, oh, I'm sorry, shirts, are sold outside of Salt Lake City?

I'm also going to make damn sure that if I am starting a team from scratch, I'm going to be everywhere, logo or not. I'm going to make sure everyone knows we're coming. That's how you become successful. Not with silly nicknames (or lack of them) and arrogance.

[Gothamite]

I didn't see a whole lot of "we want to be YOUR team."

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't been paying attention. They've practically been begging for fans, going out in the community and blanketing the city.

They've done a ludicrous amount of outreach in the community, from youth groups to showing up at soccer pubs on match day with surveys and questionnaires. You can level many criticisms at them, but not arrogant detachment and entitlement, waiting for fans to come to them.

[-kj]

Almost sounds like a Tom O'Grady sour grapes situation.

[Captain Tsubasa]

[...]

As for the Dallas Burn, that was one of the worst names I have ever heard. San Jose Clash? Miami Fusion? Tampa Bay Mutiny? Wow. How can you rank those on the scale of bad?

[...]

The MLS is just a mix of good names and some very bad names. Real Salt Lake? Don't even get me started on that one. The MLS wants to be global. Tell me how many RSL jerseys, oh, I'm sorry, shirts, are sold outside of Salt Lake City?

[...]

Well, since NYC FC is now the brand in question here, how would you rank that one compared to San Jose Clash, Miami Fusion, Tampa Bay Mutiny and Real Salt Lake?

[hawk36]

I'd rank like this:

BEST: Teams with a long history, past just the MLS (original NASL teams), and teams with a perfect nickname for their city

MIDDLE: Teams with appropriate, good nicknames to their city, or simply the city + FC

WORST: Teams with nicknames that have nothing to do with their city, or fake Euro names like Real, Sporting, United (when it's not made up of two or more teams combining)

I'd put NY City FC in the top tier since I consider City to be the nickname and feel it's perfectly suited for a team from THE city, NYC.

[IceCap]

WORST: ...United (when it's not made up of two or more teams combining)

The "United" name doesn't always reference a merger. Manchester United, the most famous team to use the "United" tag, is not the product of a merger. The Newton Heath LYR club simply changed its name to Manchester United.

As far as DC United goes, I think it works. The District of Columbia is the capital to the United States, so I don't see an issue there.

[Gothamite]

That's a common misconception about "United." I can only think of two clubs which chose the name to reflect a merger - Newcastle United and Sheffield United (although that last one was borrowed from a cricket club so formed).

Leeds United, West Ham United, Scunthorpe United, Southend United, and as noted even Manchester United all chose the name because it's "football-y" and they liked the sound. Exactly the same reason DC United did.

[Jaffa]

There are a couple of other 'combo' Uniteds in the English Leagues...

• Rotherham United, formed from the the merger of Rotherham County and Rotherham Town.
• Torquay United, formed from Torquay Town and Babbacombe - although the waters are muddied somewhat as Town were the result of a previous merger in which one of the teams already carried the United suffix.
• We could also count Hartlepool United - formerly Hartlepools United - named to represent the twin towns of Hartlepool and West Hartlepool.
• There was also the now defunct Burton United, formed from Burton Swifts and Burton Wanderers.

In the main though, 'United' has become a generic name in the same way as Rovers or Town/City. What the MLS really needs, however, is a 'Stanley'.

[Nyk33]

There are a couple of other 'combo' Uniteds in the English Leagues...

• Rotherham United, formed from the the merger of Rotherham County and Rotherham Town.
• Torquay United, formed from Torquay Town and Babbacombe - although the waters are muddied somewhat as Town were the result of a previous merger in which one of the teams already carried the United suffix.
• We could also count Hartlepool United - formerly Hartlepools United - named to represent the twin towns of Hartlepool and West Hartlepool.
• There was also the now defunct Burton United, formed from Burton Swifts and Burton Wanderers.

In the main though, 'United' has become a generic name in the same way as Rovers or Town/City. What the MLS really needs, however, is a 'Stanley'.

I think MLS would benefit from a 'Tigers' as well.

As for DC United, I'm fine with it because DC is after all the capital of the United States. I know that's probably not the official reason for the name but that's what pops into my head whenever I see the name.

[Jer15]

On the "United names".

I've always been more than ok with that as a name. I look at it as a way to say "this is a club for the people" if you will. The fans, the players, the ownership and, the staff are all "united" for one goal. To win.

Maybe that's over-analyzing it but frankly, it makes sense to me.

[Gothamite]

I think that's fair enough.

Thanks for all that, Jaffa!

[Panthers]

I haven't seen any outreach Gothamite. There has been some bickering in the papers about where to put the stadium, but other than that I haven't seen anything. I would think that they would try to reach out to the Latino and South American communities in Queens and Brooklyn. Haven't seen that at all. You do realize that the Hispanic market is the fastest growing ethnic market in the United States (and has been for the past three years.) I haven't seen squat. Have you been in Bushwick recently? Queens on say Roosevelt Avenue and 110th Street in Corona? How about on Broadway in Astoria? Greenpoint Avenue in Greenpoint? If you have, has there been any mention of NYCFC or whatever the F they call themselves? No. Of course not. It tells me how much the people at Man City did their homework. Same as say the NFL did when they launched the WLAF in Europe. That's arrogance. That's just plain stupidity.

As for where NYCFC ranks on the scale of terrible nicknames, I'd rank them right up there with the Clash and the Burn. I could see Mutiny (and Rowdies) for Tampa - Buccaneers, Bandits….but NYCFC? EPIC FAIL.

Why don't we just call the Portland Trailblazers the Rip City BC? Sounds stupid, right?

[wonderbread]

I haven't seen any outreach Gothamite. There has been some bickering in the papers about where to put the stadium, but other than that I haven't seen anything. I would think that they would try to reach out to the Latino and South American communities in Queens and Brooklyn. Haven't seen that at all. You do realize that the Hispanic market is the fastest growing ethnic market in the United States (and has been for the past three years.) I haven't seen squat. Have you been in Bushwick recently? Queens on say Roosevelt Avenue and 110th Street in Corona? How about on Broadway in Astoria? Greenpoint Avenue in Greenpoint? If you have, has there been any mention of NYCFC or whatever the F they call themselves? No. Of course not. It tells me how much the people at Man City did their homework. Same as say the NFL did when they launched the WLAF in Europe. That's arrogance. That's just plain stupidity.

As for where NYCFC ranks on the scale of terrible nicknames, I'd rank them right up there with the Clash and the Burn. I could see Mutiny (and Rowdies) for Tampa - Buccaneers, Bandits….but NYCFC? EPIC FAIL.

Why don't we just call the Portland Trailblazers the Rip City BC? Sounds stupid, right?

why are you comparing a basketball team to a soccer team? and you can't compare rip city BC to NYCFC, because it is actually New York City, not a nick name. Also basket ball has their own way of creating names, like football, and hockey, and baseball. soccer has a completely different naming style being that they were originated Europe. If you really have such a bad problem with it being named NYCFC what would you call it since you seem to be a self proclaimed expert about soccer team names from New York.

[sozopol]

It will take a little time but I think NYCFC has a good sincere team and will come to represent the city well. The people of the neighborhoods you reference already have their teams-- be they Juve, or Pumas, or Olympiakos, or Independiente, etc. But NYCFC can make inroads over time and if they do it right I think these people would love to support a local club, particularly if the league continues to grow in quality and competitiveness.

But the key will be the youth. And already NYCFC appears to be reaching out to a number of youth clubs and programs. If they form relationships there, it won't take long for the club to really put down roots.

That's just my $0.02

[Corvus]

I think the success of using Euro style team names can be seen in both the Seattle Sounders and Vancouver Whitecaps changing their names to include "FC" for their move up to MLS from the USL (or whatever the hell the league was called in their last seasons there). These are clubs with established brands and histories going back now 40 years and they surely didn't add FC because they thought it had no value.

I don't love the FC thing, and it seems more than a little awkward in a league called MLS, but there it is. Euro soccer has made major in roads into North American awareness in the last 15 years. So making a little association to the perceived premium soccer brands of Europe makes sense. Cents too. Call it the Haagen-dazs effect.

Also, I think it's probably a little premature to judge the success of NYCFC in gaining attention from people who are already fans of other leagues. The new club doesn't even have any players yet (as far as I know?) so there's not a whole lot there to make someone who is a fan of another league where their favourite team is actually playing matches stand up and take notice.

[hawk36]

I'm beginning to think "Member" is a fake, planted just to stir up commotion. His posts aren't really making any sense and soccer and marketing aren't really his thing. Something just doesn't ring true on this one.

[-kj]

I vaguely remember him having some sort of "get off my lawn" reaction to people making noise during games, too.

[VictoriaGooner]

There are a couple of other 'combo' Uniteds in the English Leagues...

• Rotherham United, formed from the the merger of Rotherham County and Rotherham Town.
• Torquay United, formed from Torquay Town and Babbacombe - although the waters are muddied somewhat as Town were the result of a previous merger in which one of the teams already carried the United suffix.
• We could also count Hartlepool United - formerly Hartlepools United - named to represent the twin towns of Hartlepool and West Hartlepool.
• There was also the now defunct Burton United, formed from Burton Swifts and Burton Wanderers.

In the main though, 'United' has become a generic name in the same way as Rovers or Town/City. What the MLS really needs, however, is a 'Stanley'.

I would support a Stanley...

[Panthers]

why are you comparing a basketball team to a soccer team? and you can't compare rip city BC to NYCFC, because it is actually New York City, not a nick name. Also basket ball has their own way of creating names, like football, and hockey, and baseball. soccer has a completely different naming style being that they were originated Europe. If you really have such a bad problem with it being named NYCFC what would you call it since you seem to be a self proclaimed expert about soccer team names from New York.

No, North American teams create names. I was pointing out to those who think naming a soccer team without a nickname is fine, why don't we apply it to other sports? Seems to be a resounding NO! Kinda the way I feel about this team. Didn't like Rip City BC, did you? Why not the Queen City "Reds" MLBC? I'm sure you won't like that one either.

Expert? Why? Because I was born and raised and lived in NYC my whole life? Why, because I started watching soccer by watching the New York Generals and later the Cosmos? Yeah. I know nothing. I've hardly if ever left my 'hood since I was born.

By the way, around Union Square this afternoon, people were handing out keychains and and bilingual (Spanish and English) schedules for the Cosmos. Pretty smart I'd say.