You don’t have to BE a racist to do something racist. So, chasing anglos because “it’s a good business decision” is racist even if Garber himself isn’t a Klan member, or whatever. That’s all. Exclusivity isn’t just whites only country clubs. It’s also far more subtle and pervasive. So I’ll leave it at that unless others feel the need to press.
I agree with your first line, but, and I'll leave it at this also, if this argument is true, the implications are that you can't target anyone. If you target only people with money, that's classist. If you target families, that's unfair to non-parents, etc. Ideally, the club wouldn't have to focus on bringing anyone in, but that's not the case. It's a slippery slope and I don't know where to draw the line.
It’s not overly complicated and not really a slippery slope: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/protected-classes-under-anti-discrimination-laws.html These are protected classes and attacking them can be done surreptitiously. Let’s avoid it, that’s all. It’s not complicated and it’s not just some wholesome fun. <3
The English word “fire” is not particularly easy for a native Spanish speaker to say. I don’t think MLS ownership did this in 1997 because MLS heads hated Spanish speaking people. Capitalism is neither moral or immoral, it’s amoral. Businesses will do whatever makes them the most money. The end. Whatever we don’t like about what is sold to us; it is our collective faults because on average it’s what we want. There’s no need to get angry about a franchise soccer team name. Enjoy it for what it is: a professional soccer team you can watch close to where you live and hopefully have fun doing so. That’s it. Attaching your identity to it is like attaching your identity to any other business; you’re going to be disappointed when they change their direction to make more money. Money is the only language any business cares about, not English, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, etc.
I agree with most of the sentiment here, BUT (big ol’ but coming your way!) capitalism is inherently immoral. When literally nothing else matters but the bottom line, you’re going to have to make a lot of immoral decisions in order to feed the beast, and we see that all of the time. It can’t be amoral- if it were then immoral ideals like racism, sexism, ableism, ageism and others wouldn’t be amplified by it as much as they are for the sake of profits. I’ll try to stop there, don’t want this getting any closer to the politics thread than it already is, but felt it that was worth pointing out because I’d otherwise just rep your post and move on. Again, I agree with the overall sentiment that these team names are all artificial, arbitrary, and meaningless to the corporations that choose them, and personally have said many times that I don’t care if they call our team the Chicago Rubber Dicks- I’m happy to have first division pro soccer in the area and will still cheer them on, no doubt. So like, consider this a half “rep”, not that I think anyone has cared about “rep” on these boards since, well, ever.
I guess what I meant was intentionally or purposely immoral. They don’t look to be bad for the sake of being bad but will if it makes them more money. Businesses don’t believe in anything. They’ll do whatever is popular at the moment. Don’t think they support any causes truly because they don’t; it’s all lip service to get you to buy their products.
So fans shouldn’t have rebelled against the “Super League” in Europe? Just accept whatever the “business” decides to do?
That is a false analogy. Moleman's claim is that rebranding to the generic soccer names is a business decision that is not based on a specific ideology (ie racism). He is saying that it is a trendy thing to do, which is a business decision because business - especially American businesses - tend to chase trends. The Super League, while resultant from American business owners, is not an American business. Its primary market would be Europe. The generic MLS rebrands and Super League are so far removed from each other that they might as well be on different continents - oh wait. Fans rebelling against the Super League demonstrates how the market works. The domestic market for European soccer used its customer base to demonstrate that they would not support this drastic change to the product of European soccer. Realistically, it did not matter what anyone in the US thought about it because such a drastic shift requires domestic buy-in which was never there. You could make an argument that the attempted Super League was evidence of American imperialism (except that Russian and Middle Eastern owners were also involved), but not much else. I do not think Moleman ever actually said to suck it up and take whatever they give you. I believe his larger point was that capitalism allows customers some voice in the process - as we witnessed with the Super League - and is not an inherently racist economic system. Sure, capitalism could operate within a racist culture, but that is a whole other argument. In and of itself, capitalism is as racist and immoral as socialism and communism. But all of this is way off the topic at hand, which is our rebooted rebrand. Again, this is an example of the (capitalist) market demonstrating its power to negate a poor business decision (the fire crown).
So the argument here is MLS is capitalist, and capitalism can do whatever it wants because it is inherently not racist. OK.
Different situation. First off they were going to take those teams and put them in a different league. Second off these were “their” teams at some point and are now feeling severe seller’s remorse for selling their clubs away to the highest bidder rather than keeping it in their communities’ hands. Here the teams were not created by the fans and never owned by the fans. The fans here are and always have just been customers. More importantly the change here is just changing the franchise name not the league they are playing in or what they’ll do on the field. Let’s say your favorite restaurant is “Joe’s Burgers” and you get the “Super Duper Burger” every Friday after work and it comes in gold colored aluminum. Joe decides that calling it the “Super Duper Burger” limits sales so he changes it to the “Cheeseburger” and that he’d be better off just wrapping it in standard aluminum foil. You go to Joe’s this Friday and don’t see the “Super Duper Burger” on the menu and say, “Joe, what the hell? Where’s the Super Duper Burger?” Joe responds, “Oh yeah, I just call it the Cheeseburger now. It’s still on the menu if you want it.” You decide to give it a try and surprise it’s still as good as the “Super Duper Burger” as none of the underlying ingredients have changed. What does any of this have to do with burgers?! Montreal Impact or CF Montreal, Columbus Crew or Columbus SC, Chicago Fire or Chicago Fire FC, etc. No matter their name the product is the same: MLS soccer; it literally makes no difference.
that is all a very good comparison except you forgot about the marketing. a team having a nickname- at least, in theory- would be easier to market than a team without one. which is why you see all these minor league baseball teams with crazy names. not saying that is good or bad, but it can potentially get people who may not be familiar with the brand interested in it by the marketing. "city name abc," at least in the us, i think, seems out of place in our sports landscape so it might be tougher to attract locals. is it smart to potentially lessen your potential local fan base for a broader, global appeal? to go along with your food analogy, if lucky charms called themselves "cereal with marshmellows" it probably would not sell as well as "lucky charms."
Ridiculous. Let me have a go at your explanation. Let's say that your favorite team is "Chicago Fire" and you are a big fan/maybe season ticket holder and watch a "great team" every Saturday after work (sometimes in the afternoon and sometimes on Wednesdays when games are moved to accommodate the Chicago Bears). The owner, say his name is Andy, decides that having a "great team" limits sales, so he changes it to the "Shit sandwich" and he figures he'd be better off just sitting on his investment and watching it balloon in value. Eventually, you say "Andy, what's with the 'shit sandwich'? Where's the great team we loved?" Andy, first through some marketing guy in an "Editorial" and, then, through his mouthpiece, Nelson, calls you a "wallower" and says you should love the shit sandwich as none of the the underlying ingredients (a franchise of MLS in Chicago/Chicago area) have changed. They then change the "wrapping" going from a perfectly acceptable red uniform to an abortion that looks like something from spiderman and then change the main wrapping from the more than acceptable (to almost everybody) florian cross in red, blue and some gray to an abomination and change the name from the sports equivalent to the "Super Duper Burger" to CFFC, changes that nobody wanted, nobody needed and nobody liked. They then told everybody to like this new shit sandwich, as it was just a tweak to the old shit sandwich the customers had been consuming for more than a decade, and, once again, none of the underlying ingredients (a franchise of MLS in Chicago) have changed. What does any of this have to do with burgers?! Well, about as much as the current iteration of the Chicago Fire (FC) has to our beloved Chicago Fire.
Actually, this is precisely what @moleman is saying in post 2536 with his burger (which I renamed more appropriately as "shit sandwich") analogy. To quote from that post: "No matter their name the product is the same: MLS soccer; it literally makes no difference."
Well that’s changing the underlying product (good soccer). Not the name of said product. As far as I know the Columbus Crew ownership is investing heavily in the franchise and building them a new stadium after fielding a championship winning team last season. Andy on the other hand bought a franchise which was well run and decided he could slash costs and wait to sell it at a higher valuation in the future (which he did). He had no interest in preserving the product (good soccer being played on the field) which is why he swapped in much cheaper ingredients (Potato, Pauno, Arshakyan, etc.). If Andy had changed the name in 2007 to “Chicago FC” and continued to invest in the team so it competed for and occasionally won championships the majority of fans would have gotten over it because what they came to watch was a decent soccer team not a soccer team called “X.”
That is not what you said. I will quote you, once again (and highlight the relevant component): "No matter their name the product is the same: MLS soccer; it literally makes no difference." You did not say anything about they quality of the team. Your sole point in your own post was "MLS soccer, it literally makes no difference." You are assuming the team name/identity is NOT part of the team's culture or history or, to use "capitalist" language, branding. That is simply not true. The players change, the coaches change, the team should stay the same. There can be changes in identity, but your examples do not bear that out at all. It seems that your entire underlying premise is incorrect. Your example of the Chicago Fire proves that your underlying premise is incorrect. You said that Hauptman was "changing the underlying product (good soccer)" but nowhere in your posts did you qualify or even mention "good soccer" previously. Columbus has some awful, awful seasons over the past few years. Does that mean they were "changing the underlying product (good soccer)" during those years? Montreal has been in the top 10 in MLS once in their entire history in MLS. "Good soccer" does not enter into it and never has. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
I was holding what the soccer team was before and after the rebrand constant (assuming the same players, coaches, management, etc.). A change in brand / name has zero to do with how well or badly a soccer team plays on the field. Quality of the soccer being played relative to others in the league is the product being sold (i.e. results on the field); I didn’t think that was necessary to say. The rest of it is just ancillary. You are paying money to hopefully see a soccer team win a game of soccer. If you’re paying a corporate soccer team to give you an “identity” you’re probably in trouble. I don’t think it’s healthy to define yourself based on what you buy, and make no mistake that “supporters” are really just LARPing customers (just a bit of fun not meant to be taken seriously as if it’s life and death). A corporate sports entity having an “identity” is for rubes to convince them to keep giving the entity money year after year when they don’t invest in the product (don’t want to be a “fair weather fan” even though a franchise owner will think nothing of moving the team or stop spending on it if they can still make money off it) or to cry to their public officials that taxpayer dollars must be used to fund a stadium for a private sports enterprise. Watching MLS soccer is fun and a good way to make friends. It shouldn’t define you as a person. It barely makes sense in European soccer today (with many of those teams being privately owned now), and people who “bleed Crew gold” or “bleed Fire red” need to get a grip. It’s just a sports franchise; if it’s making you angry beyond 20 minutes after the game thinking, “Damn, they lost” it’s likely not healthy.
Your “analogies” are wildly inaccurate but I wanted to point this out. This is just factually incorrect. Quality relative to other teams is one of few things they cannot control. They sell everything else to us and hope we can accept the quality for better or for worse, year after year. You really have this backwards.
What do you mean? How is it not in their control? They can spend against the salary cap like any other team. The Fire is bad at it sure, doesn’t mean it’s out of their control. If they can’t control it, why are people upset with the players on the team and lack of signings? Seems to me the team could make moves to make the team competitive (i.e. win games). Besides the chance to watch live soccer and buy some merchandise what are they selling to us?
Cringe to the max for sure. And how in the heck do you ‘forge a path’? The marketing folks should learn English. The only positive is they kept ‘soccer’ in the name, good for them. The logo sucks, though