bleuet

Atlanta in MLS

Recommended Posts

Just to prove I'm not above making fun of my own favorite team:

BI6eFHUCYAAUWSJ.png

(Well, I didn't create it. But still.)

You created part of it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying it for the past year. Anything aside from Atlanta Terminus, Atlanta Phoenix, or SC Atlanta would be a major loss for them. Boy is this a major loss for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a defender of "Euro style" names, and I still think most are perfectly fine (Real Salt Lake can go jump off a cliff). That being said? This one's just ridiculous. It comes off as the team doubling down on a trend, rather then trying to establish a traditional, long-lasting soccer brand.

Can Sporting Kansas City join them?

I know that team has a lot of cool aspects to their new brand but that name is almost as cringeworthy as Real Salt Lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a defender of "Euro style" names, and I still think most are perfectly fine (Real Salt Lake can go jump off a cliff). That being said? This one's just ridiculous. It comes off as the team doubling down on a trend, rather then trying to establish a traditional, long-lasting soccer brand.

Can Sporting Kansas City join them?

I know that team has a lot of cool aspects to their new brand but that name is almost as cringeworthy as Real Salt Lake.

I don't see that at all. "Real" anything in a place that has no ties to the Spanish monarchy is ridiculous. Whereas "Sporting" is perfectly appropriate for any team.

The only thing that bothers me about Sporting Kansas City is that its logo says "SC" and not "SKC". I suppose "SC" is for "Sporting Club"; but that doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

They listened to the fans, but the fans didn't exactly know what they were saying. :P

*immediately begins pushing for "Chimeras" as the fan nickname.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sporting Kansas City is the official name and it makes zero sense grammatically. The international Sportings that they're cosplaying as, the full name is usually Sporting Club ____.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sporting Kansas City is the official name and it makes zero sense grammatically. The international Sportings that they're cosplaying as, the full name is usually Sporting Club ____.

Grammatically? The grammar is just fine: "Sporting" is an adjective, modifying the proper noun "Kansas City".

And, as I said above, I realise that "SC" is for "Sporting Club". So, if that is the case, then the team's full name should be "Sporting Club of Kansas City". (By the way: there would be no problem on the grammar there, either, as the adjective "Sporting" would modify the noun "Club", and "Kansas City" would be the object of the preposition "of".)

However the full name of the team is not "Sporting Club of Kansas City", but simply "Sporting Kansas City". So there is no basis, given the full name, for the "SC" monogram. For "KC" or "SKC", yes; for "SC", no.

I'd like to see them go with the full "Sporting Club of Kansas City" name. That would justify the monogram; and we'd still be able to refer to the team informally as "Sporting Kansas City".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they're two completely different things but I'm surprised they would go with United considering Delta is headquartered in Atlanta and such a huge supporter of the local sports teams. I'm sure they're going to love putting their name right next to the word United, if they choose to advertise with the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Real Sporting Atlanta City United FC" just rolls off the tongue....

Of Anaheim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like to make generalizations but this catalog name lends support to the idea that artistry is becoming stagnant. We're seeing it happen across many applications like sports design (OKC Thunder, LA Clippers, TB Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes), general design (Facebook, American Airlines, Coors Light), video games (EA sports games, redundant FPS's) and music (the copy-paste nature of modern country and pop, among other genres and music personalities).

I get the intentions. Build something clean, flat, safe, yadda yadda for everyone and you won't have to change things for a while. But it's starting to border on lazy and uninspired. And it's not like picking one distinct nickname would squander Atlanta's image. The fan support is there regardless of the name they choose. Might as well give them something they can call their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

They listened to the fans, but the fans didn't exactly know what they were saying. :P

Well I don't think it's the fans as much as this is a problematic result of design-by-focus-group. Offend no one, excite no one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with the Atlanta MLS team conducted their name search. The 'least troublesome' words got through, because there was too much differing opinions on other names. The problem is this: how many fans would really walk away from supporting this team if they went with a name or word that they didn't vote for? The number should be negligible at best. So, instead of a decent name, we get United FC. I understand that Minnesota was already playing under the MUFC name, so that made sense.

It's almost as if teams want to be as inclusive as possible now, they can't create their own names. The most recent 'new' MLS name was Houston Dynamo. Which had that 1836 fiasco. Everything since has been a team playing under their old or current name (Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal, and San Jose), or some variation of FC/City and now the trend for United (Sporting Kansas City, Toronto FC, New York City FC, Orlando City SC, FC Dallas, future LAFC), and then the Union/United naming coming up next after FC/SC and City have been played out (Atlanta United FC and Minnesota United FC, though they'd qualify in the first list with Seattle).

Props to Philadelphia for at least deviating a little, though it still was intended to mean the same 'all-inclusive' meaning. City and United are at least a bit better than just the bland 'FC/SC' tag on. Even the Crew weren't immune, going with Columbus Crew SC when Columbus Crew 96 would have been awesome given their new logo design. And FC Dallas could've done it, too.

Oh well.

And as for SKC, my biggest gripe is that stylized SC on their logo. It does not belong there. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SC was a KC in the same style, they'd have one of the best crests in mls. But that out of place monogram knocks it way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that logo in your avatar yours? Regardless, I'd love the actual logo to be something along those lines.

Yes, it's my concept I made back in November. Thanks for the compliment. If you want to check out the concept, click here. You can see the progression of the design and also the inspiration.

I am hoping to go to the event. I also like the gold. Looking at the image, it looks like that's a custom font. You can see it on the A, E, and C, for sure. That and the stripes a sign of things to come?

Edit- Can anyone ID that font?

Nothing stands out to me, and based on the E I'd wager that it's a custom font. I originally thought that the two stripes could be part of the Adidas stripes, but I can't say that with confidence now since they seem to stand on their own (that and they wouldn't show kits this early in the process). Since that seems to be the case, I'd say that it would be a part of the identity.
That's what I was thinking. No idea on the font, and I do agree that somehow those stripes are significant. They could mean stripes literally in the crest, or stripes on the kit. Who knows. Exciting time to be a soccer fan in Atlanta!

The font is custom. I didnt create the original bones or aesthetic of the font, but I did the final comb-though to get all the letterforms and typographic details just right. It's not very flashy. It's a dignified style with what I see as cues from old industrial letterheads and hand painted building signage, but cleaned and stripped of the vintage decoration in favor of crisper lines and a curvilinear structure thats smoother and more geometric. I really like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Real Sporting Atlanta City United FC" just rolls off the tongue....

Of Anaheim
Two week suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost as if teams want to be as inclusive as possible now, they can't create their own names. The most recent 'new' MLS name was Houston Dynamo. Which had that 1836 fiasco. Everything since has been a team playing under their old or current name (Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal, and San Jose), or some variation of FC/City and now the trend for United (Sporting Kansas City, Toronto FC, New York City FC, Orlando City SC, FC Dallas, future LAFC), and then the Union/United naming coming up next after FC/SC and City have been played out (Atlanta United FC and Minnesota United FC, though they'd qualify in the first list with Seattle).

Props to Philadelphia for at least deviating a little, though it still was intended to mean the same 'all-inclusive' meaning. City and United are at least a bit better than just the bland 'FC/SC' tag on. Even the Crew weren't immune, going with Columbus Crew SC when Columbus Crew 96 would have been awesome given their new logo design. And FC Dallas could've done it, too.

I think you're on to something with the blandness as risk-free inclusion idea. Overcompensating for the zany 90s, I guess, but pardon me if rooting for the Reds, or City, or one of three Uniteds doesn't get me too excited. Where's the local flavor? Where's the identity that says "this is who we are" instantly? Celtic has had 100 years to seize "the Hoops" ... when am I ever going to associate with Dallas, Texas? And I think the league is realizing that an awful lot of North Americans watch European leagues on early Saturday mornings, and they think the best way to tap into that market is to create as American an approximation as possible, down to the branding? I dunno. I really don't get it.

And the names are so damn clunky! Like think about these New York rivalries. Knicks-Nets, Yankees-Mets, Giants-Jets... Red Bulls-NYCFC? Or Red Bulls-New York City? Doesn't roll off the tongue, and doesn't sound like the iconic event that the league is pretending it is. I suppose Man City's AAA team seems to be doing alright for themselves in tickets and merch, so it's fine I guess, but it doesn't feel like soccer asserting itself into the American sporting landscape.

It's particularly funny to me that the American Outlaws have really pushed that "America :censored: yeah" aesthetic with garish flags and ironic eagle t-shirts into the forefront of American soccer support, while the domestic league seems to run as far as possible from doing anything that might be perceived as distinctly American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's often a disconnect between club and country. Nothing new there.

As for NYC, they're doing more than "alright". At least in terms of becoming a part of the city's soccer landscape if not in terms of on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but it doesn't feel like soccer asserting itself into the American sporting landscape.

MLS tried that, and we got the Dallas Burn and San Jose Clash. FC Dallas is a G-dsend in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but it doesn't feel like soccer asserting itself into the American sporting landscape.

MLS tried that, and we got the Dallas Burn and San Jose Clash. FC Dallas is a G-dsend in comparison.

Just because Clash and Burn are horrible names doesn't mean that Americanized names are a horrible idea.

There can be good American style names (Sounders, Timbers, & Whitecaps), bad American style names (Galaxy, Crew, & Revolution), good European style names (Toronto FC & Uniteds*), and bad European style names (FC Dallas, Real Salt Lake, & Sporting Kansas City).

*I don't have the issue with the Uniteds as individual names but three United teams is too much. Can we get an Athletic or Rovers instead if you want to go in a European direction.

Share this post


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