Chivas USA Sold to MLS; Rebrand Will Take Place After A New Owner Is Found

[colortv]

http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/17/chivas-usa-heading-for-rebrand-trademarks-reportedly-filed-new-logos-leaked/

[Digby]

FC or SC? At any rate, as I said in another thread, dunno that it's just the name that's the problem here. I'm not convinced that there are a few thousand more people in metro LA who want to watch MLS but don't want to support Galaxy or Chivas. Half-convinced it's all a ploy to dupe ticket-buyers who don't notice the missing "Galaxy" -- that top crest is nearly the same shape!

[hawk36]

I like this BUT:

1. FC instead of SC

2. Straight, not bowed, red cross.

[rvrdgsfn]

Both look busy but if I had to pick one, I'd choose FC. Truth be told, I'm glad that the Chivas name is going.

[tohasbo]

Don't the Chivas USA team and the C.D. Guadalajara teams have something in common?

[Nyk33]

Don't the Chivas USA team and the C.D. Guadalajara teams have something in common?

CD Guadalajara owns Chivas USA.

[Kevin W.]

Don't the Chivas USA team and the C.D. Guadalajara teams have something in common?

Yes, they're both incredibly racist towards non-Mexicans.

[rams80]

The rebrand is kind of like giving the Titanic a new paint job.

[Gothamite]

Truth be told, I'm glad that the Chivas name is going.

We don't actually know that. This could be (should be) a rebrand, or it could be for a lower-level developmental team, or it could be an idle thought they've already abandoned.

We have no confirmation that the Chivas name is going.

[teddthebucfan]

Even if the Chivas name goes, I have a bad feeling that the Anti-NonMexican policy won't.

[bosrs1]

Even if the Chivas name goes, I have a bad feeling that the Anti-NonMexican policy won't.

Seems that policy is already dying. They've made a lot of player and personnel pickups and most of them haven't been Mexican of late. It seems they got the message to an extent after the lawsuits and the absolute debacle that was their 2013.

[Kevin W.]

Even if the Chivas name goes, I have a bad feeling that the Anti-NonMexican policy won't.

As long as they're owned by CD Guadalajara, it won't. That club is built on racism and xenophobia and anything it owns will follow that policy.

[Chilton92]

So why is the team getting a rebrand? Wouldn't having two teams with "Los Angeles" in their names get confusing, especially for soccer?

[Gothamite]

I dunno. Nobody confuses the NY Rangers and the NY Islanders. Or the Lakers and the Clippers, and they also share a building.

Why should it be more so for soccer? The Galaxy are primarily known as "The Galaxy" in my experience.

As to the "why", it's because nobody cares about the team now. In a league with attendance averages around 19K per game, Chivas USA draws less than 7. Downright embarrassing. They're the Tampa Bay Rays of MLS, only they actually suck on the field as well as at the box office.

[teddthebucfan]

So why is the team getting a rebrand? Wouldn't having two teams with "Los Angeles" in their names get confusing, especially for soccer?

And if there's anything to the rumors that Kroenke is looking for a soccer team to fill his LA land purchases (which I doubt mind you) than this gets even more confusing.

[bosrs1]

So why is the team getting a rebrand? Wouldn't having two teams with "Los Angeles" in their names get confusing, especially for soccer?

No one confuses the Mets and Yankees, Clippers and Lakers, Angels and Dodgers, Cubs and White Sox, Jets and Giants...

And they're rebranding because their current brand is a second rate minor league ripoff of a Liga MX team's identity that no one in LA has ever identified with unless they're a sucker for all things "Chivas". And even then most Chivas Guadalajara fans are not fans of Chivas USA. And to add insult to injury their ownership has engaged in racist and exclusionary tactics with players and personnel that have harmed the franchise considerably and permanently scarred what little cache the name Chivas USA had left. It resulted in them getting crowds of an estimated 2000 or less a game this past season despite their reported attendance.

They need a fresh start, and this is the first step. The next will to get their own venue in a different part of LA so they can continue to build their own identity rather than be the bastard son of an oft reviled Mexican team.

So why is the team getting a rebrand? Wouldn't having two teams with "Los Angeles" in their names get confusing, especially for soccer?

And if there's anything to the rumors that Kroenke is looking for a soccer team to fill his LA land purchases (which I doubt mind you) than this gets even more confusing.

That crap came from the Sun. There is no truth to Kroenke wanting to put a soccer team in LA. There's not even rumor. There's just made up bull :censored: from a rag in the UK that's not even good enough to use as toilet paper.

[Chilton92]

I dunno. Nobody confuses the NY Rangers and the NY Islanders. Or the Lakers and the Clippers, and they also share a building.

Why should it be more so for soccer? The Galaxy are primarily known as "The Galaxy" in my experience.

As to the "why", it's because nobody cares about the team now. In a league with attendance averages around 19K per game, Chivas USA draws less than 7. Downright embarrassing. They're the Tampa Bay Rays of MLS, only they actually suck on the field as well as at the box office.

Except those teams have nicknames to differentiate between them. For soccer, it's mainly just the city name followed by "FC" or, in MLS's case, "SC". Yes, there are some exceptions, but those are few and far between.

[GeauxColonels]

So why is the team getting a rebrand? Wouldn't having two teams with "Los Angeles" in their names get confusing, especially for soccer?

Manchester City

Manchester United

I don't see people getting them confused.

[SJAnfield]

I have a theory outside if the ones already talked about. Chivas USA needs a new home, and has been exploring a move within the LA area for some time now. USC has stated they would like to tear down the LA Sports Arena and build a new soccer stadium. If Chivas is indeed the target, USC may want the struggling team to rebrand or at least come up with an identity that would bring in fans that wouldn't associate or identify with the Mexican club. LA FC is a much more ambiguous identity that could perceivably draw in the casual fan. The Chivas brand brings with it an idea one has to be invested or identify with the Mexican link to the club, or that the club is ment to be a Latin American affair. This isn't true of all Chivas USA supporters, but it may make many many shy away. It may seem ethnocentric or even racist, but I think the club is keeping non Mexican fans away who don't feel comfortable supporting what is seen as a pseudo Mexican club. A new stadium on USC property may come with request to put a more European/American emphasis to the identity.

Plus the leaked crests are crimson, very similar to Trojan colors. Maybe I'm reaching, but its a thought.

[Discrim]

Adding to the "no confusion" pile: AC Milan/Inter Milan, Yokohama F. Marinos/Yokohama FC, Boston U/Boston College, Man Utd/FC Utd of Manchester, Dundee FC/Dundee Utd, Dynamo Moscow-Spartak Moscow-CSKA Moscow, Red Star Belgrade/Partizan Belgrade...I've probably overkilled the point by now.

In any event, as long as they don't make all white with navy trim their first choice or coax Beckham out of retirement, nobody's gonna mistake LAFC for the Galaxy. Maybe they should revive the LA Aztecs name, seeing as it'd be rather foolish for the Galaxy to do so at this point.