The team emailed a poll this morning asking what type of mascot (e.g. snake, soccer ball, etc.) fans most preferred for the Union.
I would agree that they must avoid a mascot. I enjoy the more traditional approach to soccer spectating.
In a sense, the Union already have a mascot: a gay bashing cow. It sickens me when I see that cow prancing in front of Section 101 before games as the scoreboard plays the "Don't Cross the Line" video. If we're going to replace him with a sad rip-off of Mr. Met, I guess that's better. But still. . .
The traditional approach to soccer spectating includes mascots. I don't know where this meme comes from that European and South American teams don't have mascots, or that a sports mascot is somehow uniquely American.
Actually, since that image, he seems to have been replaced with two boring, nonspecifically ethnic but vaguely Anime-looking people.
How about "The Soccer Ball Juggling Founding Fathers"? http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/fan_forum/presidents_appearances.jsp
i still think that as apart of the bimbo deal we shoulda had some of these girls walkin round PPL just not the girl on the far left... somethin about i dont like
What time are we talking about, then? It's not like mascots are a twenty-first century invention. In fact, some European soccer teams have always had mascots, although in the early days these were likely to be actual animals rather than people in animal suits.
If the Union wanted a chicken related sponsor, they should have gone with Hooters rather than Chick-fil-a. Would have worked well with Bimbo and the concession lines would rival Chickie and Pete's.