NYC FC Branding

[gosioux76]

Wait, I have it. The PERFECT name for a NYC soccer club that uses CITY in it.

Gotham CIty FC. NY is referred to as Gotham pretty commonly. You could work with DC Comics to cross-promote, and you would sell out on shirts immediately.

Gotham City FC MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

I actually love this idea.

[Lee.]

Except Gotham is in Delaware. Possibly Jersey.

[IceCap]

Except Gotham is in Delaware. Possibly Jersey.

I thought Gotham was in New Jersey and Metropolis was in Delaware.

[kmccarthy27]

Except Gotham is in Delaware. Possibly Jersey.

I thought Gotham was in New Jersey and Metropolis was in Delaware.

Correct! It almost looks like Gotham is Atlantic City and Metropolis is like Rehoboth, DE

[hawk36]

I hate to burst the bubble, but shouldn't the team name actually be New York City City FC? Many folks refer to NY as NYC, so you would need to add another City to make it a copy of Manchester City.

I get what you're saying but what other New York team has New York City in their name? I can't think of any. Thus CITY works as the nickname, right?

[ksupilot]

Well then, luckily for you the Cosmos are coming into the NASL next season as well.

Am I the only one who's never put much stock into the New York Cosmos? Seems like they're here to sell some 70s vintage-inspired shirts more than field an actual club. Can't see them lasting especially after NYCFC moves in.

Maybe that's the plan...make some money now selling Cosmos merch. And then when the team has to fold in the NASL, sell the team naming rights to the Yankees and ManCity and rename the MLS team to the New York Cosmos just in time for play to start in 2015.

[btharner]

I hate to burst the bubble, but shouldn't the team name actually be New York City City FC? Many folks refer to NY as NYC, so you would need to add another City to make it a copy of Manchester City.

I get what you're saying but what other New York team has New York City in their name? I can't think of any. Thus CITY works as the nickname, right?

Well there were those two-season wonders of the Arena Football League, the New York CityHawks.

[Nyk33]

Well then, luckily for you the Cosmos are coming into the NASL next season as well.

Am I the only one who's never put much stock into the New York Cosmos? Seems like they're here to sell some 70s vintage-inspired shirts more than field an actual club. Can't see them lasting especially after NYCFC moves in.

Maybe that's the plan...make some money now selling Cosmos merch. And then when the team has to fold in the NASL, sell the team naming rights to the Yankees and ManCity and rename the MLS team to the New York Cosmos just in time for play to start in 2015.

I wouldn't count out those that could gravitate to the Cosmos if they are dissatisfied with choosing between an energy drink team and a team that is the child of Man City and the Yankees. There are a lot of hipsters in NYC.

[DallasStars33]

Claudio Reyna via ESPN said that NYCFC will have similar colors to Man City, but a unique logo.

[dolfan13]

There's so much ignorance in this thread about "City" as a nickname (it's not), European club naming conventions, and even North American sports team naming conventions. I've facepalmed through 5 pages of it already.

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

I welcome New York City FC and look forward to the supporters coming up with their own nickname for the club.

[Anubis2051]

Wait, I have it. The PERFECT name for a NYC soccer club that uses CITY in it.

Gotham CIty FC. NY is referred to as Gotham pretty commonly. You could work with DC Comics to cross-promote, and you would sell out on shirts immediately.

Gotham City FC MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

I actually love this idea.

I remember MLB had a series of "city nickname" shirts a few years back. This was one of them:

Except Gotham is in Delaware. Possibly Jersey.

I thought Gotham was in New Jersey and Metropolis was in Delaware.

Correct! It almost looks like Gotham is Atlantic City and Metropolis is like Rehoboth, DE

I think this refers to the newer movies (not Man of Steal, Superman Returns). The comics have the city move around a lot. And in Smallville, wasn't Metropolis Chicago?

I always liked the idea that Metropolis was New York during the day, and Gotham was New York at night.

[WideRight]

Except Gotham is in Delaware. Possibly Jersey.

DC's Gotham may be in Delaware, but NYC is known as Gotham as well, so there is no problem calling the team Gotham City FC. I think the small number of comic geeks who are going to be upset will get over it when the GCFC black jersey's with sublimated bat wings come out.

They could even use a variation of a logo like the one Valencia or Albacete uses in Spain. Both of those clubs use bats in their crests.

[The_Admiral]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

[Jer15]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

Actually, that is a "location nickname" style name.

Tottenham is the borough of London they are from, Hotspur is the nickname.

But you are right man, one way is not better than the other. I can see both sides of the argument.

For example Real Salt Lake bugs me because teams that use "real" are considered to be the team of the King of that country. That clearly doesn't work for Salt Lake.

Toronto FC or FC Dallas don't bug me even if they are "just using FC" because they just happen to be the football club for that city. Nothing wrong with that. I COULD see people saying "we call it soccer here, so it should be soccer club" In that case you'd have Toronto SC or SC Dallas but that is just nit picking.

Seattle Sounders or Portland Timbers have a north american style name and that's cool too because they have a history with those names.

None of the names are stupid. I don't understand people who call either style of naming stupid.

[nas1787]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

Actually, that is a "location nickname" style name.

Tottenham is the borough of London they are from, Hotspur is the nickname.

But you are right man, one way is not better than the other. I can see both sides of the argument.

For example Real Salt Lake bugs me because teams that use "real" are considered to be the team of the King of that country. That clearly doesn't work for Salt Lake.

Toronto FC or FC Dallas don't bug me even if they are "just using FC" because they just happen to be the football club for that city. Nothing wrong with that. I COULD see people saying "we call it soccer here, so it should be soccer club" In that case you'd have Toronto SC or SC Dallas but that is just nit picking.

Seattle Sounders or Portland Timbers have a north american style name and that's cool too because they have a history with those names.

None of the names are stupid. I don't understand people who call either style of naming stupid.

Exactly. No convention is better than the other. What I really like about MLS is that there is a mix of both. It creates a really great variation in names throughout the league, and that's definitely a good thing.

Personally I think New York City FC is a great name (though Gotham City FC is better).

[JQK]

[dolfan13]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

Nowhere in my post do I claim that one convention is better than the other. I was reacting to the all-too-common notion that a) "City" is being used as a nickname and b ) that's pandering to Europe.

My contention is that "City" is not a nickname. In fact New York City FC is clearly an example of the absence of an official nickname. But one will develop in due course, just as they have in the past. I don't see why it's such an issue. And the absence of a nickname is not something "European" per se. We've even done it in this country.

[dolfan13]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

Actually, that is a "location nickname" style name.

Tottenham is the borough of London they are from, Hotspur is the nickname.

But you are right man, one way is not better than the other. I can see both sides of the argument.

For example Real Salt Lake bugs me because teams that use "real" are considered to be the team of the King of that country. That clearly doesn't work for Salt Lake.

Toronto FC or FC Dallas don't bug me even if they are "just using FC" because they just happen to be the football club for that city. Nothing wrong with that. I COULD see people saying "we call it soccer here, so it should be soccer club" In that case you'd have Toronto SC or SC Dallas but that is just nit picking.

Seattle Sounders or Portland Timbers have a north american style name and that's cool too because they have a history with those names.

None of the names are stupid. I don't understand people who call either style of naming stupid.

Real Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City bug me because they are trying too hard to emulate something they are not. As you said, "Real" (royal) meant to designate clubs that were tied to the crown. Clearly there's no monarchy in Salt Lake City, Utah or even the US. Sporting clubs around the world meant to signify sporting societies that were active in many different sports. As far as I know, Sporting Kansas City is just a soccer franchise.

As for the whole soccer/football debate, it should be noted that soccer was coined in England as a shortening of "association football".

[Digby]

Here's some food for thought...some old American sports teams only adopted their modern-day nickname after a while in existence. This notion that not including an official nickname is somehow "a European thing" goes beyond ignorant, straddling on stupid.

Yes, but North American teams have had codified nicknames as a matter of course for roughly 100 years. Just because nicknames happened semi-organically in the 1890s doesn't mean they did in the 1970s, or that they should now. Sure, maybe secondary nicknames have occurred on their own with modern teams, like, say, calling the Islanders (est. 1972) the "Isles," but that's not the same.

One way isn't better than the other, we're just used to the Location Nickname heuristic, so European names look strange for a moment. Tottenham Hotspur; what does that even mean? But don't pretend that this is anything but pretending to do as the Europeans do, because that's been MLS's gameplan for the last nine or ten years (scarves and singalongs ahoy!). And don't call me stupid.

Actually, that is a "location nickname" style name.

Tottenham is the borough of London they are from, Hotspur is the nickname.

But you are right man, one way is not better than the other. I can see both sides of the argument.

For example Real Salt Lake bugs me because teams that use "real" are considered to be the team of the King of that country. That clearly doesn't work for Salt Lake.

Toronto FC or FC Dallas don't bug me even if they are "just using FC" because they just happen to be the football club for that city. Nothing wrong with that. I COULD see people saying "we call it soccer here, so it should be soccer club" In that case you'd have Toronto SC or SC Dallas but that is just nit picking.

Seattle Sounders or Portland Timbers have a north american style name and that's cool too because they have a history with those names.

None of the names are stupid. I don't understand people who call either style of naming stupid.

Real Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City bug me because they are trying too hard to emulate something they are not. As you said, "Real" (royal) meant to designate clubs that were tied to the crown. Clearly there's no monarchy in Salt Lake City, Utah or even the US. Sporting clubs around the world meant to signify sporting societies that were active in many different sports. As far as I know, Sporting Kansas City is just a soccer franchise.

As for the whole soccer/football debate, it should be noted that soccer was coined in England as a shortening of "association football".

Bingo. And FC Dallas? What, Football Club Dallas?

Yes, naming conventions evolve organically -- North America with the City Blanks, Blank FC in the UK, Real Blank in Spain, Blank 04 or whatever year in Germany. Using the mixture of styles in MLS signals, to me, an insecurity about soccer in North America. Adding a shootout was a bad American spin on soccer, but names that fall in line with just about every other team sport is a perfectly legitimate American spin on the game. Seems to work for the most successful and historic clubs in the league...

[The_Admiral]

"FC Dallas" is particularly egregious. When you unpack it, "Football Club Dallas" sounds really alien. We don't call soccer football in general parlance, and the way we parse nicknames is that the location functions as an adjective: not just a Cowboy, but a Dallas Cowboy. Like a Georgia peach. So what you're left with, at least as far as anglophones go, is something that sounds like it's been babelfished into and back out of another language.