So what do you think is needed or or necessary for development of Soccer in America? In Fan support? In naming Teams and how the game is presented in the media? as MLS is the Top American Soccer league should it reflect whats best for American Soccer fans or "football" fans in America? High Spanish TV ratings, But low english Tv ratings? American style of presenting Soccer on Tv or other media? (who is More accountable the media or the fans?) What approach MLS should do to win the mainstream sports fans?
i just want to see MLS should reflect that it is THE premier league in the United States. i dont see why people get so hung over on the names...some are organic, others aren't. you will see the same everywhere else. there are teams out there that carry a university's name. names change all the time, so enjoy what is there. think of all the differences MLS teams have undegone. the DC united game day experience im sure has changed since day one. in truth, we are developing our own culture. <<Euro-copy cat>> is a broad generalization, if you consider the fact that most countries have different forms of soccer culture. not many other countries can say they are like the USA , in terms of demographics. it may take years before a unique culture is formed here, but it will someday. i also think that the US has the potential to capture a lot of different markets, much like the EPL. the mainstream sports fans are just that, mainstream. people will pick a team someday and follow it. what MLS needs are less people like Jim Rome, and more people like Gary Radnich, to some extent.
I would guess the best option would be to develop your own style. But, have to be careful where that "own style" goes. Football is a global game, and the US system has to mesh with that. If it does not, then the US mens team will struggle. So, no changing the rules. I remember at the start of the MLS, some people made noises of having "3 point areas." Stuff like that wont work. However, naming of teams should be up to the local community. Though calling someone "The Firebugs" or something will result in a great deal of mockery. Presentation on TV will inevitably end up in an American style. Unless you spend all the time using foriegners to host...
First of all: American culture is made up of many other cultures. American identity is defined as borrowing from everybody else. It's part of our DNA. We couldn't be any other way. That's why I find the hangup over outside influences to be so humorous, because it's all we've ever been as a nation. Pizza, beer, hot dogs, hamburgers, they all came from other countries. Get over it. Our language came from England. The fact that MLS is made up of such a mish-mash of different kinds of team names, only shows how typically American we are being. And how should we play the game in the "American" way? Well, that's obvious. Take everyone else's best ideas, as we've always done as a nation, and meld them into a winning strategy. The American way is using whatever helps us to beat the competition. And to attract mainstream sports fans, there is no better way to do it than by winning. If we won the World Cup, there would suddenly be a lot of interested people. It would no longer be the rest of the world's sport, it would be ours. That's what winning does for you.
Just as long as the aggregate character of American culture, and not any single interest, defines American soccer. MLS shouldn't have a wholly Latin American flavor or a wholly European flavor. It should be a little bit of everything, just like America. If we want to represent "many other cultures," we should absolutely mean it, instead of have Eurosnobs try to impose their doctrine of pure soccer on a league that can do much better.
It is also peculiar that, if soccer is a global game and American culture is a mix of all cultures, that small part of American soccer that is uniquely our own is rejected outright, even as it's copied elsewhere. SkyCam in MLS was largely panned as some American gimmick by the radicals here on its debut, yet it and some version of it is being used in other leagues (Euro games had some version of SkyCam, IIRC). Salary caps, at least some form of them, are being considered by UEFA, yet people seem to think they're keeping MLS down. There is rampant inconsistency in this area.
I do take some issues with MLS and this is MY LEAGUE. #1) There is nothing 'Royal' about Salt Lake. #2) A Football Club is well, that is NFL. We have SC's here ~ no FC's here. #3) There is no such thing as United - we have yet to have 2 teams merge together in our Tier 1. Seriously, think about it......
I don't know if it has been intentional or not, but I think MLS has reflected the "identity" of the US National team for quite some time now: solid goalkeeping, gritty defense, less than spectacular finishing, and a high pace. Part of that is due to the US having so many solid goalkeeper and defender prospects, that stay on the fringes of the national team or go to Europe. Those defenders don't always have all of the "technical" skill that they should, and the league has helped them more than the talented attacking players. Americans like Donovan, Johnson, Hejduk, Jones, Twellman, Wolff, McBride, and Beasley as well as MLS's constant Latin influence, have made the league very very fast, but without the best finishers. When MLS can start to get more guys who are technical in attacking, I think that identity will begin to shift again. The national team right now is still that great goalkeeping, gritty defense, a ton of speed, but without world class finishing. Now with the youth teams and young signings in MLS, there's more technical skill and more attractive soccer. Guys like Rogers, Kljestan, Montero, Holden, Nyassi, Cooper, Ekpo, Davies, and Renken are already showing those changes.
Ok, I have. You are viewing the use of the word "united" from a purely european team naming perspective. It could just as easily mean a union of city, team, and fans.
Kk, I’ll concede #3. [I guess United could mean ~ unions ~ or all around people working together or such] Still there is nothing ROYAL about Salt Lake City and still we have soccer clubs, not football clubs.
WHO CARES? You can call them FC (football club), SC (soccer club), KC (kickball club), or CC (calcio club). Who the ******** cares?
No, he's just an idiot who is repeating (again) the misinformation that the "United" name comes from two teams joining into one. This has been shown to be false, yet it still gets repeated as gospel on BS. Edit: ok, I see he took it back. I'll take back the 'idiot', then.... for now.
The point is negligible, it’s just we should be able to plays the worlds game and not have to make up stupid things like – Salt Lake City is ‘Royal’… Like it or not we do call it soccer, putting a FC after your team doesn’t add any credibility.
Have you heard of globalization? Everyone else in the world calls it football. I dont have a problem with FC because that is soccer culture. It also makes it easier for MLS and those teams to market MLS in Europe South America Asia etc.
. I think you're arguing a point that isn't really all that important. Why get stuck on "FC", "Real" or "United"? There a bigger problems in the league right now. You're right, they don't add any credibility but they also don't hurt the image of the league. A lot of people here seem to think that there is some HUGE difference between the way soccer is supported and embraced in different parts of the world. When it comes down to it, there isn't. The one thing that makes soccer a global game is the passion exhibited by it's fans. There is no identity that has to be found for the U.S. or soccer in North America. We just have to support it, and the powers that be have to ensure that it grows. Whether or not soccer becomes really successful in the U.S. depends on one thing: Success on the world stage. I don't mean to be offensive here but I think it's pretty obvious that Americans are not interested in supporting anything that they can't say they are the best in the world at. If the day ever arrives that the U.S. can compete for the world cup and be considered one of the best teams in the world...you will see soccer flourish in the U.S. Sorry for the sidetrack.lol. As for the question posed in this thread...develop our own or accept Euro copy cat? I think the identity already exists. The country is so diverse that it's natrual to find that it's soccer identity will be diverse. There is no need to try to "develop" an identity. It will come on it's own.
Do you know what SC means, because it doesn't mean soccer club. It means Sporting Club, AC means Athletic Club which are just other names for football clubs because teams used to share names with other clubs or grew out of them so they used these terms rather than FC although they could have used them too. If an American club had SC it would still probably mean Sporting Club not Soccer Club because that is what it is known for in most countries. I call soccer football, not all the time i need to correct myself when I say it otherwise people will think i'm talking about American Football.
The SC would stand for whatever the team wanted it to stand for. If an American club had SC, it would still probably mean Soccer Club because they wouldn't want to copy everyone else. There will be an SC in MLS at some point, and I guarantee you it won't stand for Sporting Club.
Yeah i was watching sports center earlier this month when Lynda Cohn forcfully made her co anchor say "nil" instead of nothing during a Soccer highlight.. i thought that was rude and unecessary
Have I ever told you guys about my fantasy of scoring the winning goal for the US in the World Cup and being interviewed in a hot tub by a topless Linda Cohn?
SC historically means Sporting Club, and in most countries as well, as such why would it be any different to using Sporting Club rather than Football Club. They mean the same thing they just use different words. like I said earlier, I'm American but I say football and I have to correct myself to say soccer. There is no reason why a team can't be a FC here because the majority of people call it soccer. I know that a team could be an SC and be Soccer Club what I was referring to was the fact that most people in the world would probably assume it meant Sporting Club because thats what SC means to them.
I agree with your first one, but not the other two. On #2, 'S' and 'C' are two weak consonants in a row. When you say them together, they slur into each other. You wouldn't want to be Chicago Fire Essie would you? On #3, the notion that 'United' must denote a merger is an urban legend. The first club to call themselves that, Sheffield Utd, didn't merge with anything, and the most popular one, ManU, just up and changed their name from Newton Heath without such a merger.