La Liga's is strange, that LFP thing with the flower petals. Bundesliga has the outline of a guy kicking a ball on a red background. Serie A's is actually good, that swirling thing around a field. Liga MX just recently re-did theirs, and I couldn't draw it, but I think it's simple. Premier League has the lion with a crown with one paw on a soccer ball. But that's not the point. The point is not comparing it to other leagues. It's that this is an amateurish concept that was delivered hamhandedly. It just doesn't work. It smacks of someone trying way too hard.
Can do three of the five. MX and Serie A I draw a blank for, even though I know I have seen them within the last 90 minutes.
Can you blame them for phoning in the second half?? They hung three stars on their opponent in the first half..
Not very good. Just seeing the logo in isolation doesn't tell a viewer there's any connection with the sport of soccer. They may think of it in connection with real estate and the 3 stars being location, location, location. The other leagues have a graphic element that references the sport at least.
MX with a green M and a red X, it may or may not have a soccer ball around it, the word "liga" may be there somewhere.
It fails because it doesn't do what the most basic point of graphically design logo's are supposed to do, make a connection between your company/product and what it represents. This logo does not say "this represents the league of MLS, the highest level of SOCCER in the United States." You have to explain what the logo means, which IMO means it's a complete failure. No logo should have to be explained and nobody should ever have to point out that a logo like this represents a sport. Someone at MLS hired a kid out of college who spends way too much time on twitter, facebook, instagram and all those other social media hubs, someone who wasn't paying attention in their graphical design classes, and just whipped up a very basic and confusing logo.
Not True... I am one of the complainers. I work in a design/marketing department and have for over 15 years. A logo that needs this much explanation is bad marketing. Maybe this logo will succeed in spite of the bad marketing strategy behind it. Example: This statement is pure bullshit... "SLASH: The slash refers to soccer’s speed and energy. The slash begins outside the perimeter and drives upward at a 45-degree angle to illustrate both the nonstop nature of our game and the rising trajectory of our league. It bisects the crest to create a “first half” and “second half.”" A slash sometimes is just a slash.
"Q: How does the new crest fit in and transcend the soccer world?" This kind of marketing-speak makes me want to punch a kitten.
When you see that logo, you think Apple. So the logo ties to the company. Here's a logo from a local company up here in Seattle.. Can you guess which one.
I don't hate it or love it. I can't even decide if I like it more than the previous logo. I'm just disappointed as it seems like a missed opportunity.
Point was, the logo at some point gets associated with it, regardless if there's a single design element that ties it to what it is the company actually does.
So ... 1. I don't think it matters ... much. 2. I don't think it's terrible. 3. I think it's supposed to put teams forward as the face of the league. In other words, this is MLS stepping back from the forefront of MLS's branding. When the teams dictate the colors, league branding is truly secondary. 4. I think we have to see how the "window" is used before we condemn it. I suspect this ... ... is kind of the point. Well, maybe not quite exactly the point, but I expect that window will be filled for various purposes.
I don't see the company or products in that logo, myself.. It always looks like a ringed planet with a kickstand to me.