That was an incredibly douchey statement issued by MLS and Garber. It is now quite clear what the position of their 3 biggest SGs, and that those SGs position have the combined support of a unified membership x3 (or x6 if you count the smaller Cascadian SGs). I think it also is clear that we have the support of many (most? all?) non-Cascadian SGs in this particular fight. I sincerely hope that the Cascadian SGs and the Cascadia Cup Council goes to the mat on this one. I don't have a problem with MLS making money from hyping the derbies, or even using pictures/video of the pageantry in the stands as part of the promotion. But to try to assume you own something that clearly you don't (regardless of the "value added" that MLS brought) is downright evil. I would speculate that even without Cascadia Cup ownership, MLS has obtained more value from the Cascadian SGs, than MLS has imparted value to the Cascadia Cup. I base part of that assertion on the assumption that the SGs have ZERO intent on ever branding the Cup with a corporate sponsor. And if I had to guess what would last longer: MLS or the Cascadian Rivalry, my money would be on the rivalry. Edit: I would also hope that the FOs of the 3 Cascadian Clubs would "man up" and support their most ardent supporters, and tell the Don to back off, at least in private. Seems like a realistic hope from at least the Timbers and Sounders FO... Whitecaps FO seems a bit harder to predict at times.
I love the arrogant assumption that MLS must protect itself from evil 3rd parties, while completely missing the fact that the supporters groups feel the same exact way (including about MLS itself).
Both sides need to realize you can't have one without the other. No fans, no league, no league, no fans.
Don, salvation is easy enough. Before you go to bed, each night, just chant "By the fans, for the fans". I'm sure you will see the light eventually. Whipping is optional.
The Timbers FO has communicated to the TA leadership that they weren't aware of this move by MLS. Fuzzyforeigner can confirm for Seattle but I think it's the same for them. I doubt the Whitecaps knew MLS was attempting to steal the trademark out from under the supporters groups but Lenarduzzi claims it's something the teams and league have talked about.
Called it, sadly: Nice job by the Don not mentioning they were trademarking all the rivalry cups, not just the Cascadia Cup.
It wasn't that long ago that MLS and Garber could care less about history and tradition that had it's roots in the NASL. And if it wasn't for the efforts of hard core supporters we could have ended up with the Seattle Alliance, or Seattle Republic, which were a couple of the league's approved choices for a new Seattle MLS club. Keep up the fight, Cascadia!
So these supporters groups should just kowtow to the league, and relinquish their intellectual property without a fight? Come on.
That's not what I said at all, it has to be a give and take. Not everything done by MLS is malicious, stupid and short sighted probably, but one the immediate response is one that the league is out to hurt the supporters groups, just seems wrong to me that's all. Because like it or not, without the teams/leagues there is no Cascadia cup (i know it was round before all the teams were in MLS, but the fact of the matter is, right now without MLS it's got nothing). And like I clearly said, MLS needs to pull it's head out of it's ass and think things through, I mean they should have seen an uproar a mile away, especially with how well organized the groups are on the internet these days (though this also surprises the shit out of me they hadn't trademarked thing they consider a valuable part of their groups identity).
By underhandedly going about this secretly and being caught with their hand in the cookie jar it certainly doesn't make it appear they were doing this to "help" the supporters groups. Reading statements made by Don Garber and Will Kuhns sure make this seem like they have corporate sponsorship already lined up and ready to go, which is exactly what the supporters groups don't want and aren't going to stand for. Yes there would be. If we had teams in USL Pro we would still be playing for the Cascadia Cup and if MLS ceased to exist tomorrow it would be contested by 4th division rec teams if need be. It was created by the supporters for the supporters.
Pretty much. It seems pretty apparent to me that MLS is doing two things here: Digging in. Stalling as long as possible. It's also not a coincidence that things like the RMC and Heritage Cup have not been mentioned by MLS even with all the fuss over the Cascadia Cup. When they did this they were hoping that nobody would notice. Even after they've got their hand caught in the cookie jar they're still hoping nobody notices the other trademarks they are trying to snatch up.
I agree that not everything the MLS does is malicious. However, MLS started this fight. They didn't go to the supporters groups and say: "Hey, we want to protect this, and we feel we can do this better than the supporters groups can." They went and filed a trademark right away, presumably hoping that no one would notice until it was too late. That is being combative/sneaky to start with. The PNW supporters groups are simply protecting their intellectual property here. They likely didn't file for any trademark before now because people either didn't think of it. These are groups of fans and their primary focus is on being a fan of the team they support. They don't think like companies, trying to protect assets. MLS probably had the right idea about protecting the name, but went about it in a horrible way. It may end up being that the trademark ends up with MLS with the Cascadia Cup Council's approval (I'm actually not against that). However, they would get literally NOTHING for all of the investment of the supporters groups have put in over the years if they didn't put up a serious fight. The supporters groups deserve some say in how the Cascadia Cup is marketed, because they are the reason it exists, and they are the reason it is even being marketed at all.
Don Garber had a week to compose his remarks after he was already aware of the uproar. Such belated remarks are, to be charitable, highly disappointing.
If MLS does retain this, as a temporary solution, would a protest in the form of creating a backup cup (like Cascadian Cup or something dorky like that) possibly happen? Because if the MLS version sells no shirts and the alternate version packs stadia with their merchandise... I think that would send a message. And if there are any teams I would feel confident to entrust with something like that, it would be the PNW fanbases. Obviously, that's a worst-case scenario if the Cup and the merchandising and all that is torn completely away from the supporters' groups. Heck, you make one shirt and one scarf and produce it in three separate color schemes... you can have home and away fans decked in the exact same message while still supporting their team. That could be cool. On a different note, I wonder sometimes how much Garber has to do with this, in reality. As the figurehead of the force making these moves, he obviously will have to support it one way or the other. He's shown on a number of occasions that he cares for this league and that he is very impressed with its fans--and these dry, pat statements sound unusually rehearsed. Not saying he doesn't have blood on his hands, but he's taking all the crap and might really not even be much of a proponent of the moves the organization is making. (I'm probably wrong.)
I disagree that the Cascadia Cup Council should approve of anything short of full control of the Cup. The Council itself really exists for no other reason. I WOULD support the Council licensing the Cup to MLS for something like $1 a year, so that MLS could use it for promotion, etc, but the whole point of this exercise is to keep the permanent control of the Cup in the hands of it's rightful owners. The point is to be able to rescind that privilege if MLS tries to abuse the Cup by doing something with it the the SGs find abhorrent. Because only with that implied threat could we keep fan control of this nugget of our history.
That still doesn't change that the fan support is really what is being sold/marketed here. Even if the supporters call it something different, the fan support will still be there. Also, every figurehead ever takes the brunt of the criticism for the organization they front. That is expected as a part of the job.
Every ounce of legitimacy the cup has is through the supporters groups. If MLS takes the cup the supporters can delegitmize it fairly easily and that's something that won't be decided in a court of law.
That's what I mean. But don't just delegitimize... legitimize a rival cup immediately and in incredible numbers, and MLS might notice.
You cannot have a cup competition without a cup, and the supporters will own THE Cascadia Cup (the one they commissioned and paid for) regardless what MLS does with the trademark. Thus, if the Cascadia supporters so choose, and regardless of the tradmark tiff, MLS will have to create an ersatz cup, because the authentic one will be in the hands of the supporters.
Are there similar actions being taken by fans of the other cups being trademarked (outside of Cascadia and RMC)?
I am really regretting being out of town for the first Seattle-Portland match. I can only imagine the tifo and supporters groupsʻ chants for that game. Good thing it is nationally televised and can be re-watched on MLS Live. I imagine there will be a lot of sound editing and not as many shots of the supporters groups for that game.