This is off topic but I want to get the opinion of European team fans. What kind of names should MLS teams have? There are two schools of thought in the USA. One is that the present names, like Wizards, Metro Stars, Crew, etc. are fine. The other school thinks that they should more closely resemble the Euro teams, like United, Gunners, Wanderers, etc. What do you guys think?
No, each country has there own nic names in their own language. Americans should call MLS names by whatever their culture decides. If you want to get really authentic, mostly call your teams by where they come from. I.E Washington, Detroit etc. Most football fans around the world call the team by the city most of the time. To further confuse things, names like 'United' or 'Wanderers' are offical add on names, while 'Gunners' or 'Baggies' are not offical names. Arsenal are not called 'Arsenal Gunners' etc.
as an american raised on european football, id say the nicknames are generally good, but even some of the best ones take a little gettin used to: best- crew (great simple moniker) united (an obvious tribute to england) galaxy (and i for one like the new kits) fire (classic logo too) good- earthquakes (always good to be truly local) metrostars (see earthquakes) burn (one of those that seem awkward at first) rapids (see metrostars) uhhhh... not quite so good (they sound like little league)- revolution (revs sounds better though) wizards (wiz is worse)
I think the American names are ridiculous. But it would be even worse if European names (as if there is such a thing) would be copied. So just keep it the way it is IMO.
I think they are ridiculous as well and its laughable the chairman or the league or whoever has to give the team a nickname instead of the people of the area its based in coming up with one in time themselves,but I really dont care wether they keep them or not and as previously noted there is no such thing as "european names".
Okay i'm no way European but I am a European football fan for sure so here's my thoughts. I don't think there is any problem with the current names and I think the way they name the teams reflects the American sports culture (look at names for baseball teams or basketball teams). Americans do not want to copy Europeans and it's clear when you look at the playoff system and some of the rules to the game (like the now-abandoned MLS shootout). However, there *is* a DC United and from my guess they probably did get the idea from Manchester, the name as well as the color. But of course DC, in its own right, is the capital of the United States of America so I guess it's debatable.
Yeah, I agree. The US names seem to resonate with that whole cheerleaders/piped organ music/NFL/NBA thing, but it would be far more corny if you started calling teams 'Washington Hotspur' or 'Colorado Rovers'. The MLS names sound funny to me, but only because they aren't 'traditional'. Variety is the spice of life, after all
Though it is easy to attribute DC's nickname to English clubs, it has a local basis as well. DC's base of support comes from Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland and Washington; hence "united" is an apt nickname here.
quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Though it is easy to attribute DC's nickname to English clubs, it has a local basis as well. DC's base of support comes from Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland and Washington; hence "united" is an apt nickname here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The word united in football clubs names is nothing to do with "unity" in the community is because to clubs have joined to gether. For example Newcastle Utd used to be called Newcastle East End & Newcastle West End. This even happens in places that have two teams such as Manchester but everyone knows Man U is not in Manchester. it's in salford
I think part of where United comes from is the fact that its the nations capital. I know that no one here thinks this is true, and that its a "tribute to England", but I disagree. If it were, then it could be applied to every team. Fans of all MLS teams come from different areas so the reasoning at the top saying that it unites Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. is likely not the reason. Why not Los Angeles United? Chicago United? Kansas City United? Dallas United? or New England United if indeed it is a tribute to England. Most of the MLS team names have something to do with the area, so why should it be any different with D.C.? I think its D.C. United because its the capital of the country and "United" is a fitting word for a capital city's team. And maybe it doesn't have anything to do with "unity" in England, but it may well have something to do with that here. Just like someone else said in another post that each country has their own reasoning behind names. No one on here knows exactly why, so people should avoid using statements like "its obviously a tribute to England".
What I dislike about the MLS names is that they are so abstract. I prefer concrete elements. The Chicago Bulls became a worldwide icon, sure, because they had Jordan, but that simple, devastating bull logo had something to do with that as well. How do you make a good logo of a rapid? So, I'd like to see the D.C. Eagles, the Dallas Mustangs, the New York Mutts, the Colorado Wolverines, the Los Angeles Coyotes - ok, well, maybe that wouldn't work - but the idea is valid. Incidently, what the heck does Real mean? I mean, they're saying they're the real Madrid team, or is it an acronym of some kind?
I must say that while our names may not be the best it's nice not having ads on the jerseys. That seems kind of tacky, almost American, from here.
Actually, DC United is not just a copy of a Brit. Name, and doesn't refer to a "united" community as an earlier poster suggested. There were 2 pro teams in the area (Diplomats and ??; NPSL and USISL, or whatever, I can't remember anymore...ancient times, you know ). Anyway, the name "United" refers to the fact that DC would now have just one team that, although not a merger of these 2, would represent the fact that all DC fans could have just one team. I don't know if any of the players on United came from either of these teams, but United is more than just a fanciful name copied from the Brits. In fact, some folks still call United the Dips, one of the 2 former teams.
No, they're not on the front - but have you checked out the backs of the jerseys ever? Kelloggs? Mastercard? These sponsors don't ring a bell?
You say for the Earthquakes and Rapids and Metros that it's always good to be truly local, when that's exactly what the name Revolution is. I thought Man U just named themselves United in their early 1900s to make themselves sound like the rest of the "United" teams. I thought they couldn't decide whether they wanted to be Manchester Celtic or Manchester United and they chose United. I read it in their history somehwere, lemme see if I can dig it up...
What's your source for this explanation? That's not quite the explanation the DC United fans are giving on their thread. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=34747 Who does? If some people do, it's got to be a small minority. Nothing widespread.
to support your theory thomas rongen was once on the diplomats. furthermore the second team was team america made up of members of the u.s. national team of the early 80's. of course much of the same could be said of those vaunted dc united teams of the late 90's.
Oh, really? wow, so, what language is "realidad"? Or, "realmente" or, "realizar"? Royal Madrid, then - whatever. But don't pretend that in most cases, "real" doesn't mean the same thing in both Spanish and English.