If old names haven't been used it was because MLS wanted to be the anti NASL....but slowly things changed for the best so now we have Whitecaps, Sounders, Timbers, Earthquakes in MLS, and many others in the other leagues.... Tornado were historical and they won a title in 1971 but never really were a great team, but it would have been much better than FC Dallas
San Diego Padres I know them but it's baseball,not soccer, first of all, then San Diego is in the Usa and not Mexico and the official language of Usa is english, Aztecs would be much better than Los Angeles FC and I hope it will be employed in one of next Nasl expansion bids. Toronto FC is also shitty and I don't know why they didn't get called Blizzard or Metros....Atlanta and Minnesota United I really can't understand, they are not british teams, if they did not want to use old NASL names they could have been called Minnesota Thunder and Atlanta Silverbacks.....Railhawks was not great but still better of North Carolina FC
Actually English is not the official language of the US. The US has no official language. And yes the Padres play baseball, but what difference does that make? It's the name of a sports team. And no one considers it "ethnic" just because it's a Spanish name any more than they consider San Diego an ethnic name just because it's Spanish. Nor is the University of San Diego's sports teams name of Toreros consider "ethnic". I really think you're off base here and clearly don't understand just how interwoven with Spanish/Mexican/Latin American culture California is. Having a Spanish sounding name in California is no more limiting then having a German or English sounding name. And as for the old NASL names in general, I understand you have a hard on for them being an Cosmos fan. But fact is most of the old NASL names were absolute garbage and were left in the dustbin of history just like that failed league was for a reason. It didn't work. Most of the names that have popped up as replacements are superior with a few exceptions, namely the teams you listed. And clearly not having NASL names hasn't hurt MLS seeing as most its teams are doing fine including the teams that left their cities' old NASL names in the dustbin. Tying this back to San Diego, the Sockers name is in use and is not available, so they can't use it. And the other 2 SD names from the old NASL, the San Diego Toros and San Diego Jaws, were just terrible (and rightly short lived) so no sense in bringing back such bad failed names. So they'll have to come up with something new, better and original.
anyway, in MLS there are Earthquakes, Whitecaps, Sounders and Timbers, plus Dynamo takes their name from the Houston Dynamos fro the old USL which folded in 1984, without counting that Orlando City has three lions in their logo and they are nicknamed Lions akin' to the old Orlando Lions of APSL in the actual USL there are Tampa Bay Rowdies, Tulsa Roughnecks, and Bethlehem Steel, a historical club founded originally in 1907 and folded in 1930, in the Nasl we have of course New York Cosmos and Fort Lauderdale Strikers altough the florida team is not fielding a team this year....in MASL we have San Diego Sockers, in the ASL (which is a joke of a league but nevermind) there are as you said Atoms and Fury from Philadelphia so why not Chicago Sting in the new Nasl, and so on? History counts and no way on earth a team called Tulsa Fc would have the same appeal, and Seattle Maremonti would have been the same (one of the purposed names for Seattle MLS teams)
well Tampa Bay Rowdies were called FC Tampa Bay and they payed to get back their naming rights because they were dumb.....
No for them the NASL name had some cachet and was a popular choice locally. You saw that in Seattle and Portland too over in MLS. But that's not always the case. There's been no call to bring back the Aztecs name in LA for example because quite frankly it's not that good. There's been less call in many other markets. Were some NASL names ok or even great, sure. But just because it was an NASL name 40 years ago doesn't mean its worth bringing back. You seem to think all the old names were worth acknowledging. They're not. Some of them were absolute shit.
It was Earthquakes actually. And in a vacuum I agree it might have been considered a shit name. But considering it replaced "Clash" it looked positively brilliant by comparison. It replaced a name that had nothing to do with anything to a name that's at least California relevant.
The only NASL 1.0 name that I am aware of not in use that I would like to see make a comeback is Quicksilvers. All the rest are either bad or just uninteresting. Sting and Aztecs I put in uninteresting.
Quicksilver lasted just one year and did not reach play-off....Las Vegas would be good as Scorpions or taking the defunct indoor team legends or americans or taking the mobsters from pdl
I liked San Antonio Thunder or Los Angeles Wolves but I would not use them now because the original teams were really short lived
to be true there were rumors a couple of years ago to call Aztecs a new Nasl franchise in LA...so don't say there hasn't been a call....Aztecs boasted Best and Cruijff, so it makes sense, furthermore they won 1974 Soccer Bowl
About having a spanish name I think it's not a good idea because it could mean the team being identified with mexican immigration and there could be the risk for that franchise to be a failure like Chivas Usa indeed was, and I don't want to discuss about that team because it would mean opening another long chapter, but I guess this would sound ethnic and it is not good for soccer in the Usa considering it was labelled like this for decades and it was an obstacle for the growth of the beautiful game