Rumor is that St. Louis is pushing hard for an MLS franchise (get in line folks) and the name that they wish to use is....St. Louis United. Reactions anyone?
Same reaction I have to names like Manchester United or Newcastle United. Nothing. We have our traditions already. St. Louis will have to build theirs. Good luck to them.
or Sheffield United, Leeds United, etc. We don't own it -- but if I was MLS I might balk -- makes branding here in the USA a bit more difficult. Why not Borussia St Louis? or Bayern St Louis?
Doesn't really roll off the tongue, does it? I actually really hope that St. Louis gets a team (despite my personal distaste for the city,) but it seems odd that they would want to use United as their moniker. I mean, sure, in other countries you have lots of teams that go by 'United,' but then again in other coutries you have, well, lots of teams.
Just like Newton Heath who changed its name to Manchester United simply because it sounded cool. Most teams named United didn't unite anything in their creation. A few combined teams in forming, but most did not.
I agree we don't "own" the name United. But unless St. Louis has a particularly compelling reason for using the name, it sounds a bit like they just liked the sound of it. In DC's case, Gordon Bradley was raising funds/investors for a "Washington United" decades ago. And we're a city (much like Philly in that regard) that is divided by a river, 2 states and the concept of "uniting" the area is apropos. You could even make an argument for KC (with the Missouri/Kansas division) I guess. But St. Louis? I guess you could make the same argument as with KC (ie: Missouri and Illinois). Maybe if there were 20-25 teams in the league I could see it. But with only 14-16 by the time St. Louis gets here, I think they'd need to go in a different direction.
I say keep up the tradition Real Salt Lake started and go with Paris Saint Louis. PSL...hmm, doesn't roll off the tongue like PSG though.
I know some TFKAM posters argued we were just posers. But I think anyone who knows the DC area well, identifies with a lot of the divisions in this area: --black and white neighborhoods --Maryland and Virginia, divided by a river --burbs (especially outside the Beltway) and DC with the immediate inner suburbs that feel like "city" (like Arlington, Alexandria, Silver Spring) --the politics of the area (which doesn't affect most of us but is clearly a divisive split for many folks). I'm real comfortable with United as our name not just b/c it's a good traditional name but b/c even in year one, it was an appropriate name for this team in this cultural and geographic area.
Also, I think I read that they want to build their new SSS/retail/residential/etc. complex a few miles outside of St. Louis across the river in *Illinois*. Like, in the general vicinty of East St. Louis, which is not really a place that St. Louis proper would want to be united with in any way. Maybe it's changed since then, but when I lived in St. Louis, the only time I crossed the river was when I was driving back home to DC.
What's wrong with that? I'll take that reason over serious poseur names like 'Real' anything in this country, with its long history of royalty.
I actually agree there were (and are) good cultural and symbolic reasons for the DC team adopting the "United" moniker. If St. Louis had good cultural and symbolic reasons for adopting "United' then I'd be OK with it. But if they didn't then I think I'd object. I know! "St. Louis 1836"!
Did anyone ask Boston United? I mean not only did we (i.e. the US) steal their first name but we (i.e. DC United) stole their last name. Now if we have St. Louis United, we'll have really done a number on them. Of course, following the link that Matt found, I might suggest they go with St. Louis Lynchers or St. Louis Racists instead of United. Or United Dividers? Anywho, I've got no problem with it if they decided to use United. They could always go ethnic and call themselves Eintracht St. Louis (i.e. St. Louis United in German)...
I'd heard they were much more likely to go with "Knights" because of the statue in St Louis featured in their crest.
Supposedly, their stadium will be built in suburban Illinois just across the Mississippi from St. Louis proper. So, the team would be "uniting" Southwestern Illinois & East Central Missouri so to speak. Not a biggie in the grand theme of things. More than a few Brit teams use United; off the top of my head, Man United, Newcastle United, Leeds United, West Ham United, etc., etc. It sounds cool & St. Louis could do worse. About time that MLS got another "United" team.
Great idea. ESL. It also means English as a Second Language. That would be great for signing foreign players who want to learn English. On a more serious note, I cant believe this is even worth a thread discussion. ST LOUIS can call themselves whatever they want, as long as it is not something racist, derogatory or plain stupid. So St Louis Child Molesters or St Louis Red Bulls should be out of the question, while St Louis United is more classy.
I don't know who he is, but I suspect he lives in that gold guilded palace in downtown Salt Lake City...
Also: Dundee United (SPL) Drogheda United, Waterford United, Galway United (Eircom) Home United, Geylang United, Gombak United (S-League) JEF United Chiba (J-League) Incheon United (K-League)