The problem with catering to latino fanis the majority already have a favorite football club, in the FMF or otherwise. They ain't gonna abandon their team simply because you give a team a "latino" flavor to it. Even if CUSA wins the next 23 MLS Cups, they won't throw away their loyalty to their clubs. It's just not gonna happen, no matter what you do. Moving to a different city won't change that. Getting their own SSS won't change that. CUSA was destined to fail from the start, because catering to latino fans, fans who already have established ties to clubs with longer histories, is an extremely flawed, and ignorant, strategy. Until CUSA changes their name and becomes an American club, attendance wise, they'll always at the bottom of the league.
It wasn't even that. CUSA was designed to cater to a specific group of Latino fans, namely those whose favorite team is already Chivas Guadelajara. "Come out in droves to support the lesser version of your favorite team" - that's an even more flawed strategy than simply trying to appeal to Latinos in general.
I think what most are suggesting is that Chivas USA should drop the "USA" and get local. Whether its the Aztecs or Hollywood United the team needs to feel apart of the community.
Or how changing the name is suddenly going to engender fandom of Mexican ex-pats and Mexican-Americans that were supposedly alienated by the Club Deportivo Chivas USA name.
Latino fans is a very broad term, I know plenty of Honduran and Costa Rican Sounders fans. It's possible to like more than one team provided they are in different leagues and many Latinos DO follow an MLS team in addition to the ones back home. There was a figure of something like 30% of MLS fans are Latino.
If a rebrand is necessary, LA Aztecs was my thought as well. Team colors should be green, white and red. As others have noted, the problem with Chivas USA is that it fails as an appeal to Mexican-Americans, not to mention Hispanics in general. Imagine, for the sake of argument, the Japanese baseball league decided to create a team designed to appeal to American ex-pats living in Japan - they call the team NY Yankees Japan. While this might appeal to Yankees ex-pat fans living in Japan, I doubt many Bostonian ex-pats living there would want to take the team on as theirs. That's the problem with Chivas USA - it could appeal to Guadalajarans living in LA, but not much wider than that. Calling the team the LA Aztecs would use a name that could appeal to more Mexican-Americans (not sure how those with roots in the Yucatan would feel), and giving them the national Mexican colors could reinforce it as a team for their support. (And if you really want to go all out, put an eagle, with a snake in its mouth, perched on a cactus into the team's crest). This might alienate Hispanics from Central America, but it certainly would appeal to the largest segment of the Hispanic population living in LA. I also don't see it as a negative that the name has some history (although that's not exactly much of a positive either, given the small following of the NASL Aztecs). One final, albeit minor, advantage - a 5th team in the Heritage Cup. Now the team would have the LA derby and the admittedly minor Heritage Cup, which would help foster a more substantial rivalry with the northern Californians, and give additional meaning to the games with the Cascadia clubs. Contrast with the situation now where there isn't much of anything other than the 'Superclasico'. While many of the points are very minor ones, when added together they are more "substantially minor", if you will.
And how would the "Red-White-Green" of El Tri be any "less foreign" or to the point, any "less ethnic pandering" than the Chivas Name/Brand? This may be the dumbest analogy ever on BigSoccer. Or Chiapas Did you really read this before you hit "Submit Reply"? You want to go from "fake Goats" to fake "El Tri"? I guess we've all forgotten how badly previous attempts at Mexican ethnic pandering have gone. Well, the press from Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sarah America and how MLS is helping to bring Aztlan to fruition should really increase attention on the league. Which currently has less meaning than the defunct Atlantic Cup. You give yourself a lot of credit.
Thread Tangent: So which MLS Owner is going to be the first to break: Bob Kraft to build a SSS in Boston or surrounding town/Sell the Revs to someone who will or Jorge Vergara to re-brand to LA Aztecs to draw in the mythical horde of America/Tigres/Cruz Azul/Insert LMF team fans that the Chivas USA brand has alienated.
Let me offer up the rebrand to "Los Angeles United FC". Here is a first shot at a logo. <script src='http://img708.imageshack.us/shareable/?i=losangelesunitedfc2logo.png&p=tl' type='text/javascript'></script><noscript></noscript>
+1. This Aaand this. Wow, I've been agreeing with Mr. Warmth a lot lately... weird. I also find it just hilarious that so many people are saying that Chivas USA needs to re-brand and "find their own identity" and yet you want them to take the name of a defunct club (L.A. Aztecs) or the name of an already existing amateur/minor league club (Hollywood United.) How are they "creating their own identity" in doing this?
Naw, they should be called the Olmecs. It would be a fitting name when they start to bring in aging players from south of the border.
Yes! Yes! Yes! and yes! Not to Hollywood United or Aztecs, but they need to get away from the Chivas USA name.
How do you figure? They made it to the playoffs under Preki and there was no attendance boost unless they were playing the Galaxy. They have no identity here in LA, even if they win. They are never mentioned here. If winning was all it took to gain fans, then Manchester United and Arsenal would have all the fans in England. No one would be fans of West Ham or Wigan. People want to identify with their teams, it's not all about winning.
Did you design the horrible US Soccer crest too? Aren't we past the stage of meteoric Telstar soccer balls shooting through a crest? Also, why is it when these rebranding discussions come up, does no one ask Chivas USA fans what they think? I met a few who came up here for their Open Cup match. Decent guys.
Why not rebranding the club to something the fans suggest. While this has backfired before I think they could at least generate some ideas from the community. Not saying they should use them but at take them and declare the top 5 choices. We don't have a lot of CUSA fans in this thread but I'm sure plenty are proud to wear the kits and would feel a little alientated if the only reason they changed there name was because the outside community didn't approve. Finding an identity can be done without a complete name change. Changing a teams name is the first step in finding an identity and doesn't always have to be a step at all. If they can start supplanting themselves as something other than the "other team in LA" by being the more "involved" or "grassroots" or whatever identity they find they'll be fine. The club prides itself on being the Mexican-American representation in MLS. Any rebrand has to consider the 8-10k people who actually attend these games already and buy the merch.
The current fans obviously don't mind the current brand. I would say that the majority of them would vote to keep the status quo. I think the question here is how to expand beyond the "Chivas" fan base, that they are limiting themselves with that brand. I have a friend from Mexico who is a fan of Pumas, there isn't a chance in hell he would support a Chivas brand.
Right, but how would changing the name affect the fans that currently buy tickets. If changing the name severely disenfrachise's the current base then its probably not worth it. These are the things that would have to be explored before doing anything drastic.
Who do they represent? A club's identity is tied to their fans. The whole idea of branding is present yourself to some group of potential fans as their club. The Cleveland Indians belong to Cleveland. The Pittsburgh Steelers belong to Pittsburgh. Some times you widen the target, especially if you play in a multi-city metro area (Golden State Warriors, Texas Rangers). Or you can go with a brand that carries no preconceptions at all, to say "we're the team for anyone who wants to follow us" (Sky Blue FC). But "Chivas USA"? The name says "we're the club for Chivas fans living in the United States". That's barely an identity at all. "If you like Chivas, make us your second club"? And of course, it has no ties at all to where they play. It doesn't say "we're a club for Angelinos". In a way, putting "USA" in your name smacks of arrogance, like you're bigger and better than any one city. So yeah, I think they should rebrand. But there are multiple ways they could do it. -- Chivas Los Angeles - If you have to have "Chivas" in the name, at least pay homage to where you play. -- CD Los Angeles - Let the club be themselves. And if the fans want to call the team "Chivas", no one's stopping them. -- Some original name. (But not "Aztecs". Come on.) Now rebranding isn't going to bring fans in the door all by itself. The idea is to move to a brand that's at least a net neutral instead of a net negative. For example, rebranding would give them more marketing options, because they could run ads that don't mention the name "Chivas". Chivas USA has a long way to go if it wants to build a loyal fanbase. The first step in that long process is to get the team an identity of its own. ------RM
I thought someone posted that most Chivas USA fans wouldn't mind a simple rebrand to CD Los Angeles. They would still call the team "Chivas". Yeah, Chivas USA has a few fans. But I'd say they're fans in spite of the brand, not because of it. ------RM
this is what i'd do. 'chivas' isn't that hard a word to learn. it's a little harder than 'padres' or 'nordiques,' or 'diablos,' or whichever foreign nomikers you might find if you went fishing in the lists of college teams or the minor leagues, but it's not bad. if mls were a very popular league, my guess is that la chivas wouldn't be an issue. so the problem isn't just chivas, it's the relative obscurity of soccer.
Maybe they could partner with the American League team in the area, and keep the Hispanic identity, and become Los Angeles Angeles. Which would be the more ironic name? Real Los Angeles, or calling a team in the desert the LA Lakers?