I thought like that, but it is not true. If it is correct that CD Guadalajara is the second pro sport team supported in LA region, just behind the Lakers, the intention was not based in race at all (although, one could always misjudge it).
The problem isn't really how they started, it's that they keep trying bizarre niche marketing schemes. Last year their things was a team made of of only Southern Californians. And that stuff doesn't fly up here, Americans (especially Angelinos) tend to shy away from nationalistic/regionalistic type things. I think most people agree that they should juxtapose themselves to the Galaxy, become the working man's team compared to Hollywood FC (no offense Hollywood FC). The 99% to the 1%ers who are the Galaxy. But they've never wanted to go that route, the CUSA front office almost seems to relish in ignorance of the cultural makeup of LA. We do not want a nationalistic team here, whether they pander to Mexicans, Californians, or who ever they decide might fly any given week.
Didn't the owner originally want the team to only have Mexican players? That is, until his lawyers told him just how illegal that setup would be under US law. Or is that just an urban legend?
There are people who despise the franchise system, go check out soccerreform. So yes we have a unique system in the soccer world and some fans will never fully support the MLS system, but these people are the far minority of fans. The US has so many extremely popular franchise based leagues it proves that franchises can be successful here and passionately supported. The US does not have many extremely popular franchises that are essentially 'brand entertainments' that exists to market a product. Red Bull (and you can say Chivas as well) are extremely unique in the US at least in the 'major leagues'. But it does not change the fact that a worker team supported by a corporation a century ago is different than a franchise purchased and branded as the name of a company simply to help sell a product.
They are different in the same way the franchise system is. The examples given above, of Bayer and Cruz Azul, are very good. Those teams sell products! In the end, the result is the same... P.S.: Bayer actually had TWO teams in the Bundesliga until recently (Bayer Ürdinger), and the teams actually shared logos for quite long time...
Yes they sell products but they did not purchase an EXISTING TEAM and REBRAND THEM in order to market a current product. If Audi purchased Bayern Munich and renamed them Audi Munich it would be exactly what happened to Metrostars/Red Bull. You may be the only person who doesn't see the difference between a marketing a softdrink and a 100 year old worker team. And in American sports it is extremely rare. There are 141 teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and MLS and Red Bulls are really the only team you can point to that exists to market a current product. Chivas is close but not quite the same. Personally I don't mind the Red Bull/Chivas branding as much as other people, but I can see why some people dont' like it and do not want it in the league. And I'm not naive enough to think that Bayer or Arsenal de Sarandi is the same thing as CUSA or RBNY. These were formed by purchasing franchises and rebranding them in order to help market an existing product. That is not the same as a 100 year old team formed by workers at a factory or a team formed by fans to honor a foreign team. There is a difference between organic growth of a club and just branding of a franchise. I don't see any reason to be naive about this, it is what it is. I am grateful that someone stepped up and invested in US soccer when no one else would, I don't hate Chivas/Red Bull but I at least am honest with myself and know when two things are very different. Red Bull and Chivas are incredibly unique situations in 1st divisions/major leagues. Its just really rare and there are some fans who will never like it. It is just a fact and pointing out other teams with corporate branding is not going to change people's minds. There is a reason why there are 1000s of posts about rebranding RB/Chivas on this board and not 1000s of post about rebranding other clubs. It just rubs people the wrong way, and there is no value in denying it and pointing out a few other examples globally that are 'kinda' similar isn't going to change anyones minds.
I cannot find the evidence, but I remember the same thing. They wanted to stock the team with Mexicans and Mexican-Americans - not Latinos, Mexicans specifically. Then they drafted Brad Guzan with their first pick...
That's actually a pretty insulting attitude when it comes to Mexican-American fans. It implies that they're more interested in the complexion of their team's players, rather than seeing their team win. It really strongly assumes that they are parochial and provincial compared to other sports fans in the US.
It should be noted that Vergara and CUSA had confronted Garber/MLS on the international rules issue. I think they really envisioned a All-Mexican (or Mexican American) Chivas team playing in MLS (well actually they wanted to play in the Mexican league but that was shot doing by USSF). MLS wanted them to take San Diego or Houston but ultimately the league caved and gave them a spot in LA. I could only imagine that Chivas thought MLS would cave on the international rules as well, but when they did not it became unclear exactly what the purpose of Chivas USA would be. They could not be a farm team because MLS owned the players rights, they could not be an all Mexican team because of international rules, and limiting talent pool to just Mexican Americans or just Southern California players (as was suggested recently) would severely limit the clubs ability to compete against teams who didn't have those kinds of self imposed restrictions. But luckily for Chivas, due to the hard work and investment of other clubs, the franchise value of MLS teams went up from 10M to 40M and now has its sights set on 100M someday. Finally Chivas realized what they were...a club that is sitting around increasing in value and waiting to be sold.
Regardless of MLS rules, it would also probably be illegal to discriminate against players based on ethnicity or state of residence.
In the US? Absolutely. Whether that law would actually be enforced in a situation like this is debatable. Rest assured that certain public figures that could give two shits about soccer would have been up in arms though.
Point taken. However, my point is is that this thread and this series of posts INSULTS true chivas usa fans and supporters. We've been mocked from day one. We are not burying our heads in the sand, either. In fact, I agree with just about everything said with regards to our past. (Antonio Cue is our majority owner not George Vergara, either) The insulting part? Your arguments are about 4-5 years past the expiration date. We've moved on and are in the process of addressing everything being mentioned. You guys won't hear it. Honestly, all of you are not up on current events. Download and listen to MY comments from the Around the League podcast from last week. I don't hold back or apologize for our past mistakes. We are still paying for them. Starting with this thread. If you still want to insult our intelligence, well that's your call. We are making great strides and I know many of you don't care. I care about this club and this league. Period. ELAC P.s. I was being faceitous about the racist stuff. Mostly.
ELAC -checked out the podcast, good work. Any other details about the 'soft rebrand'? Would you agree that if there is not a disconnect from the Chivas brand (CDLA instead of LA Chivas for instance) then it will be difficult to attract new brands. If the soft rebrand is simply to replace USA with LA...does that actually help? Will Club America fans for instance start supporting LA Chivas now? It seems to me that unless they drop the Chivas branding, they are always going to be struggling to find new fans.
Thanks! Sorry for the late response. I call it a soft rebrand because the higher ups (mostly Gudalajara types) insist on keeping "Chivas" in the name. Antonio Cue told quite candidly that Los Angeles would be added to the name but nothing specific would be discussed. Personally, the name "Chivas" has done more to damage our chase to become one of the premier MLS teams. That said,I'll accept it if we don't ever brand. I'm a fan for life (or until we go the way of Miami or Tampa Bay). Club America fans do attend but often are ostracized by a very few but vocal Chivas de Guadalajara fans that show up. Old ways are hard to get over. I welcome all CA fans and gladly explain that this "Chivas" team is not like it's racist/nationalistic big brother. The Black Army 1850 welcomes everyone,you just have to support Chivas USA. That was my point. ELAC
That is a bit sad IMO. I think CUSA has a great opportunity to recapture a larger fan base if they indeed get a SSS and created a independent LA identity. I can't help but think of the Wizards, another club that people always said needed a rebrand and a stadium. Now as Sporting with a new home, they are one of the most respected in the league (even if the name is a bit Euro poser). You can find threads going back 10 years that called for the club to be moved and people were certain that it would never work, and now look at where they are. It would be amazing to see a Club Deportivo LA with a new stadium and a second life the way the Wizards had. It would just be a great thing for the league, but if indeed replacing 'USA' with 'LA' is the only change that is going to happen, I think it will be more like the Wiz moving to Wizards instead of like the Wizards to Sporting. There might be a minor bump, but not really anything spectacular.
Deportivo L.A. with the Chivas USA goat head logo as the new crest? Could work i guess.... L.A. Chivas? Chivas L.A.?
Club Deportivo Los Angeles and Los Angeles City FC are my favorites. We'll probably pick Club Deportivo Chivas de Los Angeles. Our colors will also probably stay the same as well.
It's cool but I dont think the league will ever adopt it as an official crest or logo (too "evil" looking) however it could make a kickbutt supporter's group logo or section ID.
So I missed the podcast where you talked about this. And now I can't find it. Do you know the date of the podcast in which you talked about this soft rebrand business?
It's actually the Black Army logo. To their credit they've done more to give the goats a unique identity than the CUSA front office ever has.
If you go on itunes, its an ATL extra podcast with ted Meyer and Chris ballard. I recorded it 2-3 weeks show. Try March 23rd.