My guess is that the NBA probably has a trademark on the singular Boston Celtic as well. Teams usually seek trademarks for names in close similarity to protect their brand. To my knowledge there have been two instances in US major league sports where two teams from different sports the same city had the same nickname, New York Giants and St. Louis Cardinals. To distinguish between the two, people would call the football teams the "Football Giants" or "Football Cardinals".
Boston Racers or Racing Boston Brave FC (and the home of the Braaaaave) <<< Boston Gunnery FC Boston Militia Just off the top of my head that I think would be decent.
The current NY Giants are actually legally the NY Football Giants Inc. And of course they founded themselves in 1925 when copyright law wasn't quite the morass it is today. The Arizona Cardinals, formerly St. Louis Cardinals, were originally the Chicago Cardinals in 1920, and while the baseball St. Louis Cardinals were in existence then, the fact that the teams were in different cities at the time probably avoided any confusion that would have been worth taking legal action over.
There were more but most changed their names, moved, or the team is now defunct. The Pittsburgh Steelers were originally the Pittsburgh Pirates (also an MLB team). The Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Braves (also an MLB team, now the Atlanta Braves). There were also these now defunct NFL teams: New York Yankees Brooklyn Dodgers Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers Cincinnati Reds It was quite common for football teams to use the name of the local baseball team when starting. The Giants are the only one of those left. That said, that all happened a long time ago. I'd be very surprised if an MLS team in any city copied the nickname of an existing major league franchise. You are not going to see a Pittsburgh Celtic, for instance, let alone a Boston Celtic. Maybe Reds, Blues, or some of the generic ones like Rangers, Eagles, or Jets, but that's about it.
Would never happen in Boston. Media would blast them to no end. And we barely get any media coverage. Non-supporters would laugh at it, it would not draw ANY additional fans. It would actually have no potential. They would be accused of piggybacking on what is considered the 1 or 2 most storied franchise in NBA history
They could be sponsored by Pepsy Cola and we could all drive to the games in our Shevrolets. When Chivas USA change their name to Los Angeles Laker, they can establish a nice rivarly. I'm sure no one would sue.
Fair enough, but the MLS team didn't re-brand, they went with the Whitecaps when they entered the league.
Boston Revolution S.C Get a bit of the new and old in there, without losing the support of the original '96 fans. I would only do this in conjunction with a move to a stadium much closer to Boston obviously.
I just thought up the perfect team name Inter Athletico Real Boston United F.C. The eurosnobs will come in droves!
I like this option best.... Revolution isn't all THAT bad of name when it comes down to it... people are hell bent on coming up with something better, but at the end of the day the Revs name has 16 years of history under its belt and I think there is something to be said for that.... Soft rebrand with a new logo in a new stadium is the way to go in my opinion.
It's simple-use the most kick-ass logo for Boston and simply have the team be called Boston. Just toss a soccer ball in the spaceship. Plus, Tom Scholz can sue the team 4 or 5 times since he loves a good lawsuit.
Green in the uniform could also go very well with the New England Pine Tree flag that was used in the American Revolution.If they wanted to still make some kind of connection to the revolutionary heritage they could incorporate the pine tree flag into the new logo--kind of how philly incorporated the "unite or die" snake into their logo .
I'd prefer they stick with Revolution. It fits the region, its not ridiculous like "Burn" or "Fusion", and red/white/blue works perfectly for a color scheme. A new stadium closer to home would do this team wonders, NOT a new name.
Revolution is a good name and and it fits. I would like to see Boston used though and maybe shorten the official name to Revs. Just like the New York Metropolitans are the New York Mets. The Boston Revs. New logo and new stadium. That's all that is needed.
Why do they need to change the team name? The Revolution (Revs) is fine. Imo, they just need to change/update the logo, move into their own stadium and possibly change to the Boston Revolution. The fans are there. Look at the games the Revs played back in the Twellman/Dempsey days. They packed the stadium. But a decade of mediocre play with an uninterested owner turns fans off, not their name. The Revolution has history in MLS now, being one of the original teams. Bring in some big name players, get their own stadium, update the logo and actually put together a winning team and they'll be fine. Chivas USA is another story. Please just get rid of that team. They're an anchor to the league.
My exact thought. The name is fine. They need their own stadium, better logo, and a winning record and they'll be fine. The Revs have drawn in the past, they can draw again.
Actually we didn't. The 3 years Dempsey/Twellman played together were our 3 worst attendance years. And 2 of those years were the best 2 seasons Revs played.