MLS In Minnesota Is Great, But They Have To Change The Name Of The Team

Now there's a nickname I'd want a major-league team to have.

 

708113542361255937 is not a valid tweet id

From Minn United President yesterday on Twitter

 

I don't know why we have one team called United already. What two teams exactly merged to create DC United? Anacostia FC and the Dupont Wanderers? I don't mind using Euro style naming templates, but United is just too shoehorned and awful. Hopefully they don't go with it.

 

DC is the capital of the United States of America. I can give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Minnesota makes some sense with the Twin Cities uniting under the banner of a single team. Atlanta though, there is no excuse.

 

What teams merged to form Manchester United?

Hint: None. Newton Heath LYR Football Club went broke and was about to be liquidated. New investors took over the team and changed the name to Manchester United. They picked that name because they liked how it sounded and to market themselves to all of Manchester. Manchester City had recently changed their name from Ardwick AFC and was drawing fans from across Manchester rather than just the Ardwick district. The Man U owners wanted to extend their attraction beyond the neighborhood of Newton Heath.

Names picked because.....Marketing! Over 100 years ago.

 

Probably the same two who merged to form West Ham United. Or Colchester United.

If there are two stupid, WRONG ideas that just need to go and die it's the "United means two teams merged" and "MLS teams shouldn't be called clubs since they're franchises."

 

Did I miss when Manchester United became the authority on soccer culture? It's possible, I don't pay that close attention. Just because Manchester United did something doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous. At least there's some kind of context, there. Otherwise, it's just a gimmick.

 

You said, "I don't know why we have one team called United already. What two teams exactly merged to create DC United?Anacostia FC and the Dupont Wanderers?".

That certainly sounds like you think "United" can or, at least should, only be used when teams merge. That is just not true. Lots of soccer teams use "United". It has become a common part of names that make people think "soccer." DC United picked that name for exactly the same reason why lots of other soccer teams pick it. They like how it sounds and it sounds like a soccer team.

Should Atlanta or Minnesota use it? That's a different question. I would tend to prefer that Atlanta didn't but I'd be OK with Minnesota using it. You know, because of "context."

 

What was the "context" when Dundee Hibernian -- also a rip-off FYI -- changed to Dundee United?

 

You placed these two over a winter schedule and pro-rel in the USA? I think I can handle the United stuff and the club stuff if it means the Crew don't freeze to death playing in January to try and avoid getting kicked down to NASL.

 

I don't necessarily think two teams need to merge to call a team united, I was just using that to illustrate lack of context. Two teams didn't merge, there were literally no professional soccer teams within hundreds of miles, forget in the DC area, to make the name relevant in any way, take your pick. When the club was born, someone grabbed a name out of thin air that didn't mean a single thing.

And I'm not sure I really buy the 2 cities thing as being pertinent to the name United, either.

 

I'm sorry, how exactly does Dundee factor into this conversation? Nothing, except the idea that nothing a club in Europe does can be a gimmick or stupid and they're always proper and authentic. Follows the same path of logic as the people who defend the Red Bull brand because a team in Austria uses it.

 

Yeah, because even the premise that underlies the conclusion is simply wrong, yet asserted with the confidence of being an original thought. Pro/rel and winter-schedule (and playoffs, salary budget, expansion, ownership by foreign teams... even teams with the SAME name, or whether to exclusively stick with North American naming convention) at least involve thinking about trade-offs, even if one concludes that they're not viable (or preferable).

 

If you are referencing the Twin Cities, as the 2 cities, I think you are wrong. The baseball team is called the Twins based on the two cities. United works because literally and I mean literally the stadium is going to be in-between Minneapolis and St Paul and you can say it "unites" them. It may just be a Minnesota geography thing but to me it makes some sense.

 

Ok, I was on the fence but I'll go for it.

 

This is what I have been told why United was a part of the name.

1.) Unites the Twin Cities
2.) Dr. McGuire was the CEO of United Healthcare
3.) The Pohlads own United Properties
4.) Unites all the 30 years of pro soccer in the Twin Cities

Some reasons are cool others are dumb but either way I will be disappointed if MLS makes them change their name to Minnesota FC. How even more generic.

 

They do approve the names though.

 

Wrong, Nike does. Ha, ha, ha.

 

Yea, but MLS clubs are franchises that share revenue. The league can do just about anything it wants.

 

Has anyone though of the name "Lakers"?

 

It's a historical name in Mpls even Southwest high school uses it. The fans love the crest of the Loon.

 

Wrong, if Nike does then the Fire would be the Rhythm and the Galaxy would be the Groove. Some team name suck but it could have been much worse.

 

As a DCU supporter you know my bias on this, but here goes. Naming a club "FC" is basically a decision to not have a name. It's a legitimate ownership decision. But "United" is a name and having multiple MLS clubs with the same name is confusing and invites ridicule from mainstream sports fans. Here's an easy proof of the point. How about if all expansion clubs simply take the name United:

Atlanta United
Minnesota United
Los Angeles United
Sacramento United

Or perhaps we could repeat all the current names:

Atlanta Union
Minnesota Crew
Los Angeles Dynamo
Sacramento Impact

The Northwest clubs have been wildly successful with their traditional and decidedly un-euro names. Would anyone suggest that those names haven't helped those clubs establish strong brands that have played some role in their success?

 

The Sounders, Whitecaps and Timbers have all been around since 1974. Their brands were already well established.