The way they branded the team was, yes- I’m just talking about the name itself. The 90’s were filthy with non-traditional singular noun team names and MLS was just stupid with them (Wiz/Clash/Burn/Fire). The fact that we did something that was classier(?) than the other teams with similar names was great, but not what I was referring to.
All of these names could easily be the names of a minor league baseball, hockey, or lacrosse team. It’s fine to like it because you like it, but don’t pretend like these names aren’t goofy. Being goofy is fine by the way; no need to take ourselves so seriously. I have no interest in pretending to be an “ultra” or “hooligan” or “supporter” who would “die for this badge and these colors.” It’s my locally-based soccer franchise; I go to the games when I can and hope the team wins / doesn’t embarrass itself. If the team loses, oh well, maybe next time. I say this as someone who hates the rebrand. I think the half measure was dumb dumb dumb dumb. Pick a lane and own it I say. Are we an American sports franchise where Chicago’s bastion of EPL “diehard supporters” that sing in fake English accents at soccer bars around the city would say that most people at our games are just looking for a fun family activity to pass the evening like a baseball game? Or are we “propa authentic footy supporters” going to watch “the match” now says the guy who has gone to Fire games for years and takes his kids and their friends to a few games per year? I would be 100% fine with “Chicago Fire” or “Chicago Football Club” as the rebrand. At least it’d be picking an identity. A goofy American soccer franchise or a goofy American imitation “football club.” Chicago Fire Football Club? What are we a sports club founded by firefighters? No. Are we no longer a franchise but a fan-owned club now? No. Do the diehard eurosnobs think this team is worth their attention now because it’s added the words “football club” to the name? No. Am I against a radical change in team identity just to see what happens? No. I’d have respected the FO for the bad crown badge if they had said, “We’re Chicago Football Club now, this is our badge, deal with it.” Instead they tried to please everyone and pleased no one instead. 1998 was a long time ago. I’d have been fine moving on from the name if’s that’s the direction the owners of the team wanted to go in (not that my or any other fan’s opinion holds any weight for a franchise decision), but don’t slap a new coat of paint on this turd and tell me it’s gold. Adding “soccer club” was the first mistake; this just solidifies it. “Chicago Fire” or something else! Either give us something new or don’t! I don’t care, but I’m not fooled by this rebrand into thinking of this team any differently than what it has always been: a privately-owned American soccer franchise formed in 1997 that now wants you to think of it as an “authentic” “local” “football club.” Get real.
Well hey, glad a small minded, easily confused guy making dumb points could brighten up someone’s day! Chicago Fire Soccer Club existed from the first season according to my ragged Fire t-shirt from 1998. Were they really just the Chicago Fire at some point? Just curious.
That’s interesting. I guess it must have been on paper, but the FO, local media, and everyone who knew about the team called the team “the Chicago Fire.” They never presented the Chicago Fire as a “soccer club” just a “soccer team.” The minimal rebrand was an attempt by the FO to keep the few fans the team already had and to hopefully attract the local millennial / generation z audience that like (“support”) Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, Madrid, Barcelona, Atletico, PSG, Juventus, Milan, Inter, Roma, Bayern, Dortmund, (insert other less successful European football club here so the Chicagoland-based “supporter” can claim they are not “a plastic”).
Yeah, even in the Trib article announcing the name, it was just “Chicago Fire”, no suffix. It may have initially been Chicago Fire Soccer Club in the same way the Cubs are the Chicago National League Ball Club but I honestly don’t remember Soccer Club being used as part of the name until Guppy/Bridgeview, myself.
Yeah, I have seen merch with the corporate names of other teams over the years (like the example of the Cubs) as well, and having that full name on the shirt where they also spell out the word Illinois just makes it seem like a “let’s put as much words as we can on this thing” move more than an indication that the club was frequently going by that name. For instance, here’s the announcement of Guppy’s hiring from MLSsoccer.com : https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2010/01/22/john-guppy-named-president-ceo-chicago-fire Notice that the club is just referred to as Chicago Fire throughout the piece, nowhere does it say Chicago Fire Soccer Club. The Chicagoist and other sources from the early days (these look like condensed club press releases?) also do not appear to use that reference, which I feel like supports the recollection I have of “Soccer Club” only being used more formally pre-Bridgeview, where it then seemed to be included in more of the team’s communications and merch. Of course, it only happens once every decade or so (seems to gain frequency with age!), but I could be wrong here, too- it’s possible we were always known as the “Chicago Fire Soccer Club” formally and informally and I just happened find some anomalies that fit my narrative.
It was also on the outside of the stadium on the north end for a while- possibly until the end. Bridgeview to me seemed like the turning point for “Chicago Fire” v. “Chicago Fire Soccer Club”.
I actually remember having a conversation at a bar with Hauptman about this. Not joking, it was for the Ante Razov party at The Globe shortly after Yallop had been fired, so it was pre-Nelson. Somehow I ended up between Hauptman and Atul Kholsa at the bar. Hauptman had told me that there was a point he decided that the name needed to be more defined so to be distinguished from the actual fire department and he was debating between "Soccer Club" and "Football Club". And somehow, given those two options, he actually picked the better of the two and went for "Soccer Club" because that's the word that we use for the game so it's the word that should be connected with the team. So based on that conversation, I'm going to further put all blame on Nelson. But also based on that conversation, I kind of saw some sort of rebrand was definitely brewing in Hauptman's mind. EDIT: Basically, there was no official suffix for Chicago Fire until Hauptman decided to add one sometime around 2011-ish. But timeframe is just a guess. All I know is that it's something Hauptman did.
They say a broken clock is right twice a day. He was right to sell the team, I was just trying to figure out when that 2nd time occurred. Looks like this decision was it.
It annoys me because words have meaning. This team has never been “a club” as it has never had club members paying dues to be members / part owners of the club voting on the decisions the club makes. It would be like calling myself Admiral moleman despite never having set foot on a naval vessel. It’s an unearned and contextually stupid name the more you think about it.
hopefully they've realized how misguided that is. Original fans hate it, soccer moms and youth players don't care, and the euro "supporters" will recognize the pandering and add it to their eurosnobbery flair. whatever the era-the equivalent hipsters were in the early aughts came to Fire games in droves when it was a quality team playing exciting soccer and generating excitement in the stands.
club1 /kləb/ noun an association or organization dedicated to a particular interest or activity. Being a “club” is not tied to voting or dues or any of the other romanticized ideals about soccer teams.
In this context it is. A football club is literally a club formed by members to put together a football team that competes against other football teams. The ONLY reason we are a “football club” now is so that you associate the team with the “grassroots authenticity” of foreign teams founded as amateur neighborhood / town clubs that became the professional behemoths they are today rather than think of the Chicago Fire as what it is, a single-entity franchise founded by a LA-based sports and entertainment corporation (AEG) as one of its multiple league investments along with the Rapids, Galaxy, Earthquakes, MetroStars, and DC United. It’s disingenuous.
What’s disingenuous to me is all the Americans pretending “clubs” overseas are “Clubs”. I mean, you can “join” the Manchester United Football Club but all you get is some merch. https://www.manutd.com/en/officialmembership People here idealize the word “club” when in fact it’s not all that they make it out to be. Yeah, Barcelona just had their vote. They are an extreme outlier. But if the Chicago Fire can’t be a club because they don’t allow us a vote like they get in Barcelona, then Manchester United isn’t a club either.
The funny thing is, he was telling me about this like it was the one reason why we should all appreciate him. Because he decided to say "Soccer Club" instead of "Football Club".
I agree with you; Manchester United is not a club anymore than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are (who the Glazer family also own now as investors). The only reason you could call them a “football club” is because they were one originally. They certainly are not one anymore. The only “big European teams” that are still clubs are Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern (arguable), and Dortmund (arguable). The rest for all intents and purposes are franchises now owned by private investors usually with zero connection to the team. With that said all those “football clubs” were founded as football clubs with club members. Chicago Fire is and has never been a club with club members. The name is asinine and disingenuous. If they’re going to be disingenuous, I say go the full mile and just be Chicago Football Club already.