If it weren't for parking level 3 at O'hare, I wouldn't even know that the Wolves were a Chicago area team. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Adding “FC” or “Football Club” to an American-style name is so stupid (I think Seattle is equally stupid in this regard). In general adding the word “club” to any investor-owned franchise is moronic, but if you’re going to go down this “faux authenticity” route at least be consistent. Are you a soccer team appealing to people who like American-style branding? Then just be the “Chicago Fire” (adding soccer club is even kind of stupid here). Are you a soccer team appealing to people who like European-style branding? Then just be “Chicago Football Club.” The best compromise (and a lousy one at that) I can think of to appeal to both of these groups is “Chicago Soccer Club.” Adding “Football Club” to the existing name just upsets existing fans and does nothing for those who didn’t like the team and/or it’s branding before (it’s just a lame attempt to throw a new coat of paint on an old product they already decided they didn’t want).
A “club” fits perfectly, at least by definition. People have this romanticized definition of “club” in their heads but it fits just fine with any sports team.
I must have looked at the Wolves schedule at some point somewhat recently because right below your post was an ad for the Wolves!
Club members pay annual dues and vote on which direction a club takes, approve budgets, elect presidents, etc. It doesn’t exist in England because they sold out their league decades ago, but you still see it in Latin America and some parts of Europe (most prominently Germany and to a much smaller extent Spain). Despite what any US league tries to sell you, you are a customer not a club member. The most you can “make your voice heard” is to stop spending money to watch the team or buy their merchandise, but you have zero say in how the club is run. With that said, it’s more profitable to run a team as a franchise than a club as the NFL (outside of the Packers), NBA, and MLB have proven.
Well, sure, except for the fact that is not the case. In 2017, the year of the all time best attendance at Bridgeview, the average attendance was 17,383. The Wolves averaged 7,474. Their highest ever average was 9,209 in 2004-5. So a "few hundred turnstile" turns less for the Fire was 10,000 turnstile turns less for the Wolves. https://www.hockeydb.com/nhl-attendance/att_graph.php?tmi=5237 https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2017-mls-attendance/ https://www.chicagofirefc.com/media/records/attendance
Do the Wolves even play on TV? Last I heard, they were the feeder club of some rival of the Blackhawks, so we're suppose to hate them anyways, right?
I’m from the NW burbs and I cannot remember a single time of the Fire being talked about growing up. Even during the heyday. The Wolves were close and cheap and people went all the time.
They’re on TV, My50 shows a lot of their games. Not sure who officially decides who “we’re suppose to hate” or like, but they’re the local club, so plenty of people (‘Hawks fans included) watch and cheer for them.
Yeah, what I meant, and the more important number in the end. They were the Blues' feeder for a while. Now they're with Vegas, and Vegas wants to have their minor league affiliate closer by, so the Wolves may end up SOL if they can't work something out. They do play on TV on the Fire's old broadcast partner, TV 50. The broadcast quality hasn't been outstanding in the few games I've seen of them when I've flipped through the channels.
Yes, all of their games are on Channel 50. https://www.chicagowolves.com/season/2019-20-regular-season-schedule/ It seemed that the "average" attendance was a "few hundred turnstiles" more for the Wolves. If we are talking about total attendance, you would be correct, but the original estimate that the Fire were a "few hundred turnstile turns short of what the Wolves pulled"* would be wrong, both by game (the Fire drew way more, more than double) and overall (the Fire drew 11,000 more). Also, total attendance is really no way to compare. By that comparison, the Sox out drew the Bears by almost 4 times in 2017. The White Sox drew 1,629,477 in 2017 (20,117 avg.). The Bears drew 489,136 in 2017 (61,142). The Fire drew 295,511 in 2017 (17,383 avg.). The Wolves drew 284,212 in 2017 (7,474 avg.) https://www.statista.com/statistics/250070/average-home-attendance-of-the-chicago-bears/ https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/attend.shtml *["The team's all time best attendance at Bridgeview in 2017 was a few hundred turnstile turns short of what the Wolves pulled in during that same season].
I guess? By that logic anything is a “club” because it’s dedicated to an activity. I guess the sanitation department is really just a “garbage collecting club.” At least in soccer I’ve always thought of a “club” being one with members who vote on things like Real Madrid and Barcelona do.
More important number in the end? By your estimate, the White Sox are four times more popular than the Bears,since they have four times the overall attendance? That makes no sense.
Well, Chicago Fire won't be the only team "rebranding" next season. https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2020/02/10/inter-milan-serie-a-lawsuit-inter-miami-major-league-soccer/
If the Fire or Wolves had TV viewership that was of any significance whatsoever, that analogy might not be stupid.
The use of the term predates all of that. The first football clubs in England were just that, clubs, they didn't even have a league to play in until some had been around 15-20 years. The players are what made it a club, not any 'voting members'.
no surprise, but there is an away kit leak https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQdE3WgWoAAi1f2?format=jpg&name=medium
I'd be laughing if it wasn't my team annually shooting itself in the foot. What's even sadder/more frustrating is that Mansueto likely paid more to rush the rebrand through with all the merchandising partners after missing the deadline and still ended up with shit. Great all white onesie CJ. @Brian in Boston any idea what it would cost Mansueto to get these made after the Adidas deadline had passed?