Union rules or Confederate rules? One long debate with plenty of drinking, singing and darts, I would imagine.
But how many of these soccer teams that have copy cat names have managed to become big world wide brands? For instance, lets say MLS becomes one of the top leagues in the world. Is the name "Real Salt Lake" going to hurt jersey sales in Spain?
I will grant you that. It was much easier to multi-quote in the old system, that is one definite downgrade in Xenforo
Yeah it was. And what the hell is Xenforo? Sounds like one of those pyramid scheme MLS jersey sponsors.
true, but even native americans are immigrants. they just happened to be the first immigrants. We are all just africans. Maybe we need some african names
The coolest team name ever is Hearts of Oak. Of course that is a Ghanian team with a European name. Europoseurs.
The difference there is that both French and Spanish language and culture have had a legitimate historical influence on the modern American English dialect. Words like "faux", "fiancé", “déjà vu” etc. are part of the English language that everyone knows and uses naturally. We have a legit claim on those words. The same can't really be said for the aspects of English/European soccer culture that various MLS franchises have tried to adopt. And it's not merely that they’ve been adopted in the first place--it's that these tropes have been adopted in a fashion that doesn't even make sense, failing to leverage the legit ties certain regions do have to Europe. Having been settled by the English, French, Spanish and Dutch (not to mention regions that were hubs of German and Italian immigration) several regions in the US have legit connections to Europe, yet still adopt chiefly English footballing conventions or just don’t apply any logic whatsoever when trying to foster some cultural connection (meanwhile, we also shrink away from our legitimate connection to Mexican/Central American football culture, which I complained about in the CUSA rebranding thread with the highly-Anglicized "LAFC" logos. LA, historically and presently, is about as un-English as you can get) For example, a team called "Real San Diego" or "Real Los Angeles" would connect the region to its Spanish origin and have the added benefit of appealing to the large populations of Spanish-speakers in both cities. "Real Salt Lake" has neither benefit and sounds, instead, like it was randomly chosen from a wheel of Euro footballing naming conventions like "FC", "United", "Sporting" etc. When you pull a name out of a hat without any regard for its actual historical context (“Real” has a very explicit meaning; ask a Madridista about it sometime) while at the same time ignoring your own regional/local history it comes across very poseurish. That’s, like the definition of poseur:
Why? That's like asking if rebranding Hull City to Hull Tigers will hurt its sales in America because it seems more American, isn't it? That said, I doubt people in Spain will ever be Salt Lake fans because its a tiny town out in the middle of nowhere that has virtually no cultural connection with Spain whatsoever. How many Real Betis fans does Ameirca have? Same thing. Spanish people will basically be LA, NY, or Miami fans I bet.
No matter what you name a team, someone is going to cry about it, I don't have a problem with any of the names in the league, past or present. ChivasUSA was the perfect name for what the owner was trying to do. Was it wise, the results say no. RSL, they have stated the reasons for choosing that name, and the market has embraced it. In the end the name doesn't matter after the first game is played, it's about how a team runs itself.