ksupilot

NYC FC Branding

Recommended Posts

I believe I've seen that it's technically Futbol Club Dallas. One could argue that, like in many abbreviations, the "of" is left out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

It's actually "Futbol Club". They made an attempt to appeal to the Latino community when they rebranded. Although, "CF" would have done a better job of that.

I wouldn't call the shift in naming conventions in MLS as an insecurity. Rather, it was a change in focus. They tried to initiate new fans to the sport and failed miserably. So they changed their tactic to try and bring back the purists who they had shunned. Soccer is a global game with a global consciousness. To say that wearing scarves and singing at matches (and having nicknames absent in the club's official names) is somehow trying to be European or turning a back to "American tradition" is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said scarves and singing are the problem. I'm all for that. I am saying, though, that coming up with a bizarro construction like "Real Salt Lake" is pandering poseur-ism. No doubt the MLS failed in the early years -- but, silly as names like Miami Fusion and San Jose Clash were, those weren't the problem as much as a poor on-field product and a complete failure at targeting the right market.

I actually don't think club names had much to do with any success or failure (besides maybe Red Bull New York) so I think this argument is mostly academic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said scarves and singing are the problem. I'm all for that. I am saying, though, that coming up with a bizarro construction like "Real Salt Lake" is pandering poseur-ism. No doubt the MLS failed in the early years -- but, silly as names like Miami Fusion and San Jose Clash were, those weren't the problem as much as a poor on-field product and a complete failure at targeting the right market.

I actually don't think club names had much to do with any success or failure (besides maybe Red Bull New York) so I think this argument is mostly academic.

Agreed. To be fair, names like Sounders and Impact are kind of silly, but they haven't affected those teams' ability to attract fans. The same can be said for names like Sporting or Real. In the end, a name is just a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if the team was called City FC in the New York Post, N.Y.C.F.C. on MLSsoccer.com, and New York Citeh in the Daily Mail.

It is a true shame that the MetroStars aren't here. New York could have had a City/Metro rivalry, with the distinction between the teams right there in the name, a la Roma/Lazio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said scarves and singing are the problem. I'm all for that. I am saying, though, that coming up with a bizarro construction like "Real Salt Lake" is pandering poseur-ism. No doubt the MLS failed in the early years -- but, silly as names like Miami Fusion and San Jose Clash were, those weren't the problem as much as a poor on-field product and a complete failure at targeting the right market.

I actually don't think club names had much to do with any success or failure (besides maybe Red Bull New York) so I think this argument is mostly academic.

Agreed. To be fair, names like Sounders and Impact are kind of silly, but they haven't affected those teams' ability to attract fans. The same can be said for names like Sporting or Real. In the end, a name is just a name.

.... silly? In what way? I can think of MUCH sillier names than that?

I always wonder why when it comes to this sport, the [Location / Nickname] way is frowned upon. Almost as if it were criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said scarves and singing are the problem. I'm all for that. I am saying, though, that coming up with a bizarro construction like "Real Salt Lake" is pandering poseur-ism. No doubt the MLS failed in the early years -- but, silly as names like Miami Fusion and San Jose Clash were, those weren't the problem as much as a poor on-field product and a complete failure at targeting the right market.

I actually don't think club names had much to do with any success or failure (besides maybe Red Bull New York) so I think this argument is mostly academic.

Agreed. To be fair, names like Sounders and Impact are kind of silly, but they haven't affected those teams' ability to attract fans. The same can be said for names like Sporting or Real. In the end, a name is just a name.

.... silly? In what way? I can think of MUCH sillier names than that?

I always wonder why when it comes to this sport, the [Location / Nickname] way is frowned upon. Almost as if it were criminal.

Because as a soccer nation, North America is insecure about it's lack of history in comparison to Europe. That's why we see clubs like Philly doing throwbacks to Bethlehem Steel and people getting worked up over non-traditional location/nickname club teams UNLESS there's a real history there like the Sounders, Whitecaps, Rowdies or Impact. It seems like most new team play it safe and stick an 'FC' or 'United' in front of their city's name and call it day, which sucks. Especially when they follow it up with a completely generic crest [FC Edmonton, Toronto FC, a lot of the clubs in PDL, CSL].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said scarves and singing are the problem. I'm all for that. I am saying, though, that coming up with a bizarro construction like "Real Salt Lake" is pandering poseur-ism. No doubt the MLS failed in the early years -- but, silly as names like Miami Fusion and San Jose Clash were, those weren't the problem as much as a poor on-field product and a complete failure at targeting the right market.

I actually don't think club names had much to do with any success or failure (besides maybe Red Bull New York) so I think this argument is mostly academic.

Agreed. To be fair, names like Sounders and Impact are kind of silly, but they haven't affected those teams' ability to attract fans. The same can be said for names like Sporting or Real. In the end, a name is just a name.

.... silly? In what way? I can think of MUCH sillier names than that?

I always wonder why when it comes to this sport, the [Location / Nickname] way is frowned upon. Almost as if it were criminal.

Because as a soccer nation, North America is insecure about it's lack of history in comparison to Europe. That's why we see clubs like Philly doing throwbacks to Bethlehem Steel and people getting worked up over non-traditional location/nickname club teams UNLESS there's a real history there like the Sounders, Whitecaps, Rowdies or Impact. It seems like most new team play it safe and stick an 'FC' or 'United' in front of their city's name and call it day, which sucks. Especially when they follow it up with a completely generic crest [FC Edmonton, Toronto FC, a lot of the clubs in PDL, CSL].

First of all.... soccer nation?

And I kinda doubt being "insecure about its lack of history" is the reason. And throwbacks are pretty common, it would only be a matter of time before we saw it in MLS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all.... soccer nation?

And I kinda doubt being "insecure about its lack of history" is the reason. And throwbacks are pretty common, it would only be a matter of time before we saw it in MLS.

Should have been specific to US and Canada I guess, since Mexico is more similar to Europe than the other two in terms of soccer history.

I'm all for throwbacks, but not when you're throwing back to a completely separate team with no history to your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all.... soccer nation?

And I kinda doubt being "insecure about its lack of history" is the reason. And throwbacks are pretty common, it would only be a matter of time before we saw it in MLS.

Should have been specific to US and Canada I guess, since Mexico is more similar to Europe than the other two in terms of soccer history.

I'm all for throwbacks, but not when you're throwing back to a completely separate team with no history to your own.

Hey, the MLS is young... VERY young. The league isn't even 20 years old, yet. They're just now finding their identity. I just wish some of the clubs would not try to copy and pander to the "footy snobs".

Some of the "traditional" names are worse than the ones in the WNBA. Like Real Salt Lake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC United sounds cool, but as a football club name it's meaningless, since it doesn't signify the unification of anything. (Though I may remember someone telling me that was only the case for Man U and lots of teams append 'United' for no reason?) Real Salt Lake, FC Dallas, Sporting Kansas City, those all sound irretrievably silly. "Impact" might be worse than all of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC United sounds cool, but as a football club name it's meaningless, since it doesn't signify the unification of anything. (Though I may remember someone telling me that was only the case for Man U and lots of teams append 'United' for no reason?)

Not even Manchester United resulted from a merger. Like DC United they chose the name because they liked the way it sounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think FC Dallas is a big deal, it's just bland. Pretty sure the recently rebranded Minnesota United is using the 'United' to signify the union between Minneapolis & Saint Paul, so that works I guess. I think the L'Impact [Limp act] name is lame, but that's probably because I'm a TFC supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact has their name, I believe, because it's roughly the same in English and French. I'd have preferred Manic if they were going to throw back to an old name, but whatevs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact has their name, I believe, because it's roughly the same in English and French. I'd have preferred Manic if they were going to throw back to an old name, but whatevs.

I've heard this as well. That and they were started in 1993, which means they were on the vanguard of edgy singular names.

It's kind of silly now but it has a lot of history behind it, so I think their supporters would riot if they were to change. I'm sure the front office agrees or they would have changed it when entering MLS. Even silly names become normal with time and championships, unless you're the Kansas City Wizards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact has their name, I believe, because it's roughly the same in English and French. I'd have preferred Manic if they were going to throw back to an old name, but whatevs.

I've heard this as well. That and they were started in 1993, which means they were on the vanguard of edgy singular names.

It's kind of silly now but it has a lot of history behind it, so I think their supporters would riot if they were to change. I'm sure the front office agrees or they would have changed it when entering MLS. Even silly names become normal with time and championships, unless you're the Kansas City Wizards.

Pretty sure it's L'Impact de Montreal in French and Montreal Impact in English, so it works both ways. Montreal has been Joey Saputo's baby since 1992. If he want's to keep the name that he poured his heart into building up for 20 years, I say let him. Same with the Ottawa Fury, but they shouldn't have bothered with the fan poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should a baseball team in England be "London BC?"

I have no issue when other countries mimic American sport names for more American sports. This isn't like soccer has different naming conventions in different countries. Almost ALL teams around the world are named this way in their native tounges, an yes there are exceptions but most teams around the world are named the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sporting Kansas City bug me because they are trying too hard to emulate something they are not... 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.

The new ownership's goal is to emulate the multi-sport activity of sporting clubs/societies in other parts of the world. To that end, they established the Sporting Club Network, a group of athletic organizations - soccer and otherwise - throughout the Midwest that are officially affiliated with Sporting Club and Sporting Kansas City.

I know that the Kansas City Blues Rugby Club is a founding member of the Sporting Club Network. As such, the Blues train and compete at the Sporting Club Training Center in Swope Park, wear Sporting Club patches on their uniforms, and have Sporting Club handle their commercial sponsorship and merchandising efforts.

I also believe that the Kansas City Gaelic Athletic Association - with teams competing in Gaelic football and hurling - is a Sporting Club Network affiliate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sporting name was also initially intended to represent Rugby and Lacrosse as well. The local rugby club has an affiliation but as far as I know hasn't been branded "Sporting".

Anyways, it's a reach but because the rebrand came with dynamic new ownership, a beautiful and packed new stadium and on-field success...it has worked after some initial skepticism.

Even an ill-conceived name can become popular and historical when combined with success.

Edit...Brian said it better than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC United sounds cool, but as a football club name it's meaningless, since it doesn't signify the unification of anything. (Though I may remember someone telling me that was only the case for Man U and lots of teams append 'United' for no reason?)

Not even Manchester United resulted from a merger. Like DC United they chose the name because they liked the way it sounded.

Newcastle United, on the other hand, are called 'United' because the club was the result of a 1892 merger between Newcastle West End and Newcastle East End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.