Lots of Native north american names out there, they all seem well supported regardless of the racial appeal. I still think it's wrong, but you shouldn't think USA is somehow above that line of thinking whatsoever.
It's only the non-white ethnic names and identities that are problematic. This is because they have been established by whites appropriating native imagery and caricaturing natives. But even when a non-white person seeks to establish a team identity rooted in his own ethnicity, specifically in the case of Chivas USA, there are problems as some white people don't like not being directly catered to. By contrast, team identities rooted in ethnicities that are considered white can be easily accepted by the society in general. No non-Irish people feel excluded by the Boston Celtics, as non-Latinos supposedly felt on account of Chivas USA. Furthermore, these white ethnic names do not carry the baggage of ongoing racial oppression. Despite the fact that the Irish and Italians were not considered "white" a century ago, they (we) are now so considered; thus the nicknames of the Boston Celtics and the Brooklyn Italians are uncontroversial, and they can easily appeal to a mainstrem audience. So a team with the "Celtic" moniker would likely not encounter any problems related to the ethnic nature of the name. Such a team could conceivably encounter partisanship problems. Chivas USA was actually a turnoff to people in L.A. who were fans of America and other Mexican teams. NYCFC, which shares only an ownership and not even a full name with Manchester City, is a big turnoff to many Manchester United fans in New York. It is therefore theoretically possible that a Celtic-branded team could encounter a problem in appealing to people who are already Rangers fans. In reality, however, I doubt that this would be a serious issue.
Naming a team after an ethnicity is not an issue, unless you are specifically using the name to cater to a specific ethnicity, which is a marketing process that goes beyond just a simple name. The biggest issue with the Chivas USA name was USA. Using USA just highlighted how it was nothing more than a brand extension into the US. The team wasn't about LA it was about CD Guadalajara. If the name was Las Angeles Chivas people might have been more keen to like them.
Plus Chivas under its final ownership explicitly targeted a Latino - even solely Mexican - "demographic" (the word says it all doesn't it?) which alienated all non-Latinos straight off and did nothing to woo Costa Ricans, Guatemalans, etc. I'm a die-hard Man U fan, but even if I lived in Los Angeles there's no way I'd bother with Man U. USA, for the simple reason that any player sent over from Manchester would only be there if he wasn't good enough for the Man U. first team. Why drive across LA to watch Man U's reserve side? Mind you, I might go to the odd Arsenal USA game, if only to watch the Galaxy beat them! Which is why I disagree with you about Los Angeles Chivas ever working. At the end of the day, sports teams are about tribalism and there's no reason for someone to care that much for a watered-down brand extension of what is, in the end, a foreign club. Teams need their own name and their own identity, which is why I'm even a bit sceptical about NYC FC. They'll probably get away with it because the word City is universal, and Rayo Vallecano could if they don't push the parent club too hard in Oklahoma because even reasonably well-informed football fans in the States either don't know who Rayo Vallecano are or, if they do, Vallecano don't mean that much to them either way. There's a reason the Puzzos have been very hard on anything that portrays Watford as an organizational extension of Udinese; the tie-up is constantly portrayed as being about pooling player resources and transferring Front Office skills, not making one club into a subsidiary of another. Charlton's whack-job has done the direct opposite, with predictable consequences.
Well, this is true about every MLS player, with very few exceptions. Generally speaking, if a player is good enough to play in the Premier League, he would be playing in that league. This is why I as an NYCFC fan had no problem with Lampard staying at Manchester City for the remainder of their season last year, a situation about which many of my team's fans threw embarrassing hissy fits. The fans of Ecuador's Barcelona evidently don't see it that way. Of course, this club was not founded by FC Barcelona; but the point remains that the use of a bigger club's identity is not necessarily a bad thing for local fans. The connection with Manchester City is neither subtle nor secret. And, for me as an NYCFC fan, that's how I like it. I want it known that we're connected to a big club that is still rising. And I wasn't even a City fan before NYCFC; I support Chelsea. Still, I have tremendous respect for City as a club that is doing things the right way, by having super-rich owners who are willing to spend big. City is still a far snaller club globally than United; but they are chipping away. To be associated with this makes me proud. And City, like Chelsea before them, are helping the entire league by forcing their rivals to spend in order to keep up, or else to sell to owners who are willing to do that kind of spending. This is why teams such as Chelsea and City operate in the interest of all fans, and why fans everywhere should enthusiastically embrace that which the silly detractors derisively call "modern football". For NYCFC to be a part of this process by virtue of its connection with Manchester City is a point of pride for me as a fan; this gives the team prestige far in excess of what it would otherwise have based on its play alone. So I would not summarily dismiss the idea of a team with an obvious connection to a European giant. If it is done correctly in front of a receptive fanbase, it could work.
RedBull is one not many seem to ever connect the dots on either. Brand extension can be done the right way, Chivas didn't, it is still early to call but to me it seems the OKC thing is being done the right way thus far.
First off, hundreds of boats were chartered by private industry for Italian/Irish immigrants precisely because they were white. You would have to go back another 50+ years for the stuff you are talking about. Secondly, I would separate a nickname or mascot from an ethnicity or political identity. If you ask an American sports fan what an Orangeman is, they think of this: An Italian equivalent to Boston Celtics would be something like "New Jersey Paisans". I think it would fly in Boston for a few reasons, but I don't think the gentrification of the Irish is explicitly one of them.
Not sure if Celtic are still interested in the NASL but...@celticrumors Lawwell off to America to develop the franchise this summer?
An article from STV when this first came up for discussion last October: What would be the benefit of Celtic buying a North American franchise? No NASL team boasts an average attendance of over 10,000 this season, illustrating the pedigree of the clubs Celtic would be joining. Only earlier this year was a nationwide television deal struck, with only backwater broadcasters carrying games in the most part. While MLS continues to grow in the global sense, the second tier is still struggling for Stateside recognition. In a lot of cases, the NASL is used as a breeding ground for MLS - with owners keen to prove that their markets are sufficiently fruitful to support a top-tier franchise. Therefore, Celtic could perhaps bring a bigger market to the NASL than the division itself would bring to them. http://stv.tv/sport/football/133158...-of-celtic-buying-a-north-american-franchise/
That's assuming the bulk of football people stateside know who Celtic are. And that those who know would be that impressed. If an NASL broadcast was being touted with a club's foreign owner as a selling point, I'd be more interested in La Liga's Rayo OKC than the SPL's Chicago Celtic - and I'm Irish.
FWIW, we are now at Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia, Detroit and the West Coast for potential Celtic USA landing spots: 721266884767793152 is not a valid tweet id Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Celtic Underground now reporting that Peter Lawwell may leave his role at Celtic to focus on the development of the NASL franchise, which they would like based on the East Coast: http://celticunderground.net/pistol-pete-heading-west/
Celtic Underground getting creative there. It's not far from saying that some NASL club might hire Don Garber to run them. Lawwell is a well respected, well paid soccer executive. Even if Celtic wanted to remove him from his current role, I suspect he would find something much much better than running a NASL club. I think it was Tottenham who went after him a couple years ago to be their president.
This is an entirely appropriate comparison. If there is any truth to that story - IF - there is no way in hell that Lawwell will be running the operation. Complete bollocks.
I say better location would be Hartford, Philadelphia is taken by the Union and in Massachussets the Revs play in Foxboro, so bringing Mass Celtics in Boston City area would be a smash it and a serious competitor for MLS
After reading this Philadelphia makes more sense then one might initially have thought. It also aligns with the strategy to go into downtown cores of big TV markets. Big upside to Philly. I'd like to see a team in Hartford one day: Hartford has a lot of potential, but I think Celtic are looking for a bigger city.
Celtic USA: A New Colony Club Heading to NASL? http://midfieldpress.com/2016/05/10/celtic-usa-a-new-colony-club-heading-to-nasl/
Bronx/Yonkers based Lansdowne Bhoys look to go pro by 2018 and are already Celtic affiliated. http://thesoccerobserver.com/2016/0...o-to-pittsburgh-without-fear-in-u-s-open-cup/ This would be an interesting option for Celtic NASL as they are already affiliated and this would provide the basis of a local partnership and grassroots already in the community. Celtic could be the 35%+ owner with the net worth over $20M. Play out of Fordham's Coffey Field and you have a 7000 seater that you can drop Nexxfield on to make it look better for soccer. There is already the Bronxbhoys Celtic supporters group there and the Irish communities in Yonkers and the Bronx could rally around the team.
Celtic, it would seem, certainly have a plethora of options when it comes to placing a team in America...
So the NASL would put another team in NYC area? One that would compete for fans with the Cosmos and possibly take over a stadium they've mentioned as a possible site for them to move to. I don't see this working at all to be honest, In Hartford or some other city possibly but the NASL should focus on markets that they'd have a reasonable shot at making something long lasting.