In England, their are who knows how many teams named United playing. This is ok because United is not a nickname/mascot. So I was thinking, 1. Is D.C. United's nickname/mascot "United" or not? And if not what is D.C.'s nickname/mascot? (Does Screaming Eagles count?) 2. Could MLS get away with nameing another team "Somewhere United" in the future? 3. Should MLS name a new team "Somewhere United," or would that just confuse the non-soccer folk out their? Simply put, Is United a nickname/mascot or not? If it is not they could we name a new team United, if it is then I dont guess we could name a new team United, could we?
what the h-e-double hockey sticks are you talking about. United isnt a mascot, that stupid flying eagle is... Screaming eagles is not a mascot, its a supporters group... i may have misread it but im lost.
Ok, let's try again. In the EPL we have Man United, Leeds United, Newcastle United, and West Ham United. In the soccer world, this is no big deal, United is not a nickname (example, you would not say I'm going to the United game like you would say I'm going to the Red Sox's game.) The teams listed above have other nicknames (Red Devils, Magpies, Hammers). In America, teams have a nickname/mascot. So is the MLS team in Washington nickname "United" or not? I would like to know what you people think about this. Could MLS have more than one team with the word "United" in their name, like the EPL? I mean MLB would not have two teams name "Cubs" or "Astros." So could MLS have two teams named United? P.S. I say this not because I want to have 15 "Somewhere United" teams like England. We dont have to do everthing the way Europe does it. But simply, could and should MLS name a new team United?
It is D.C. United. United is the team nickname, plain and simple. So, in America, we can say "I'm going to watch the United game", and it would make sense. And considering the lack of knowledge most American sports fans have of soccer, it would be a very bad idea for MLS to name another team United. Besides, it fits in perfect with D.C. - why mess with the formula? The eagle is the mascot, but it's not the team nickname. Lots of teams do that. The Revolution have a fox as their mascot (for Foxboro, Mass.)
Re: Re: Could/Should MLS name a second team "United" Try not to be such a putz next time. Clearly, "DC United" was intended to be a double entendre. Soccer fans, who'd heard of Manchester United, Leeds United, etc., knew it as an homage to tradition. TRADITION! People like me, who didn't even know soccer was played professionally, thought it was "The DC United." You know, they play in the Nation's capital, they have a bald eagle as their logo, the United. Putz.
Just to point out, I'm pretty sure the whole official nickname is "DC United", not "United", just like the New Jersey team is simply "Metrostars".
I think there should be like four or five teams with two or more z's at the end or in the middle of the name, too. Or we should have teams intentionally misspell their names so that they are catchy... like carpet cleaning companies always spell it "Karl's Krazy Karpet Kare"...we americans love that kind of stuff...
And by "stupid people", you of course mean casual fans the league needs to develop and sustain professional soccer in this country.
MLS should have called themselves the "AAA American Athlethic Soccer League", then they would be the first listing in the yellow pages under "Professional Soccer Leagues" and everyone would know and love it.
worldsoccer-Jeff asked a question I've wondered about myself in the past...I think it was a valid question. It's not like he was SportBoy321-ing us. From what I understand, the Euro-teams for the most part, but not all cases, the "united" moniker has something to do with a merger...obviously that is not so in the case of DC United... at any rate, to answer the question Jeff...i would say that the answer would be no to both questions...Another team in MLS with the "United" as part of it's name would not be a good idea, as DC, as much as we can have for a 7 year old league, is probably the most well known team, and anything that takes away from the identity of them is a bad thing
Confusing as it may seem, people do actually say they are "going to the United game" in England. If you live in Leeds, or Sheffield or Rotherham or anywhere where there is a United then you'll refer to your own United as United. As has been said before, the number of teams where United indicates a merger is (rather than being the majority) very small, and in fact off the top of my head I can't think of a single one.
hey, Hala, i thought the Metrostars said they were thinking of dropping the "ny/nj" part of their name. Most people on these boards want a team without a nickname. Instead, we could have a team without a city name. Weird.
Metrostars did drop NY/NJ from the name a couple of years ago. It's really not that weird - it's just like anywhere else in the world. Teams have city name + something else (Bolton Wanderers), just the city name (Barcelona), or just a name (Juventus).
yeah, but how many American clubs (in any sport) can you name that have done that before? It's basically always been city name+nickname here.
and before khansingh can chime in, I'm excluding all CFL teams (including Baltimore, and they changed their name once they found something suitable).
for the record... D.C. United was named as such not because it's soccer tradition to have a team called United, but because of the mix of nationalities in our nation's capital. America has long been considered a "melting pot" and Washington, D.C. is the hub of this. What MLS was going for here was to "Unite" all the different nationalities and the entire city. Also, it has never been "The D.C. United" or "The United" and it has always been irritating to hear people say that. Do you said "The Manchester United?" Didn't think so. Just sounds ridiculous. People refer to D.C. United as simply "United" all the time. It is our nickname, yes, just like Revolution, MetroStars, Redskins, Wizards, Capitals....United. People most certainly DO say, "I'm going to the United game." Note: although this sentence has the words "the" and "United" back-to-back, it is still not "The United." The word "United" is an adjective in this case describing the word "game." You could just as easily have said, "I'm going to the game." Don't speak to tradition in MLS...First of all, the league is 6 years old, traditions do not run very deep here. Secondly, American pro sports are MUCH different than the rest of the world in that the nickname of the team is actually the team's dominant name. We say, The Columbus Crew...or The Chicago Bears... You can even say Da Bears and everyone and their mother will know who you're talking about. In Europe, they say Manchester United. They do not refer to the nickname "Red Devils" anywhere in the team's title. Finally, to the point of the thread....NO, there is no room in MLS for another United. It would be ridiculous to the American sports culture. This is OUR league, and although I'm happy MLS is gradually adopting more traditional soccer rules over the years, we don't need to conform to the European standard with our Mascots/nicknames, etc. Simply put, that $hit just doesn't fly here in America...and that's where we need to be successful if the league is going to make money and remain in existance in 10 years. I don't see people flying in from England to attend MLS matches, so we need to focus on drawing American fans. 'Nuf said.
True. I guess it was an attempt by the Metrostars to create a more 'authentic' (for lack of a better word) soccer brand. Plus, it made sense because New York/New Jersey is just so awkward sounding but dropping NY or NJ meant alienating one part of the fan base.
But everywhere else in England and Europe, when they talk about "United", you know they mean Manchester United.
In about the 2000 season the metrostars decided to drop the NY title to become NJ Metrostars because NY/NJ i guess was just stupid to them. But like ship shady said they just decided to drop the whole name to avoid decriminating fans.