What does lack of loyalty to team names mean for the health of MLS?

ten years is not that long. teams move and change names in every league. would you assume that the washington wizards would fetch less in re-sale because they switched away from being called the bullets?

sometimes it makes sense to change a name because the name was bad, or it was picked for a reason that is no longer relevant. metrostars was named for MetroMedia (IIRC) and 1836 was around for all of 2 weeks. not many investors were monitoring financial reports for 1836 waiting for the right time to make their move. if they were, they would've been happy to not have a company name that was controversial from the start.

companies outside sports also re-brand all the time as part of a strategic business plan. sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. i don't think there are many teams in MLS with enough widespread recognition that changing their names would lead to the potential re-sale value dropping. i think you could count them on one hand. DC, LA, and a few others might be recognized either beyond the immediate soccer community or beyond the US border.

 

It means that those were ********ing stupid names.

 

Changing names or being owned by corporate entities is not that much of a big deal. Newton Heath didnt do so bad after they were taken over by a brewery and had their name changed.

 

I'd like to add that "Red Bull New York" or "New York Red Bulls" or "FC Red Bul"l or "Red Bull Wednesday" or "Red Bull 06," or even "Heart of Red Bull"... it beats the hell out of Total Network Solutions.

 

You're right. The league is doomed to failure.

Signed,

The New York Highlanders.

 

And the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Bees, and the Cleveland Naps, and the Cincinnati Redlegs (couldn't be the Reds during the McCarthy Era, dontcha know) and one or two others I've forgotten.

 

My favorite: The Brooklyn Superbas.

 

This thread is terrific; it's like a pocket guide entitled "Bad Rationales For Why The Red Bull Name Change Is Good."

 

Or, "Good Reasons Not To Hysterically Overreact." One of the two.

 

Co-sign

Newton Heath Football Club

 

--Can we get up in this?

Thames Ironworks F.C.

 

The names, logos and unis for the original 10 in 1996 were inane and embarassing. These things usually create interest and generate revenue for your product. Instead MLS really shot itself in the foot. I remember Keith Olberman referring to a Wiz-Burn match as a urologist's nightmare.

The faster we can put that crap behind us , the better.

 

When I first came to this country I laughed at some of the awful mls names like galaxy, Rapids, and fusion. The league back then was an americanized disaster to me with its own rules. Slowly during the ten years, the league started to turn into a serious football league. They change into FIFA regulated rules and even started to have teams with football names.

Names lthat refelct the city or place , for example, Fire in Chicago and Revolution in New England.are fine. Names like Galaxy and Wizards have got to go.

Sorry for my bad english.

 

Su ingles esta bien.

The planners who came up with that stuff must have been on some strong drugs. It's like they were trying too hard to be innovative, and the results were just foolish. I'm convinced it really hurt the league.

 

Why?

Where is the document that tells what soccer team names should be? Yes, you might not like them. Hell, I might not like them. But that doesn't mean other people might not have a problem with them or identify with them.

People make waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much out of names and petty stuff like that.

 

You don't think MLS would be better if we had names like "Kansas City Heart of Oak" or "Young Boys Los Angeles" or "FC Chicago" or "Red Bull United" or "Dallas Wednesday" or (my favorite) AC DC? Where's your sense of tradition?

 

[ slaps head ]

[ wishes he had thought of AC DC ]

 

I'm still laughing over the comment that MLS is a 'serious football league'. Let me make a slight correction - MLS is becoming a serious DEVELOPMENTAL football league. Any comparison to REAL football played in Europe and elsewhere is farcical.

If Europe is considered the NHL/NFL of soccer - MLS is the AHL/NFL Europe in comparison. Too bad MLS doesn't realize that - they are constantly thinking of themselves as bigger than they actually are.

When you have to CALL ESPN and tell some schlepp editor what minute there was a good chance in an MLS game (because they certainly wouldn't be watching), you're not major league in any way.

 

So what makes a major league? I don't disagree with you that MLS is not on the par with European (or the big South American) leagues.

But I have a feeling that a lot of European leagues wouldn't qualify as a "major league" either--don't think that every European league is equal.

So by this reasoning, there are only a handful of major leagues in the world. No shame in MLS not being one of them.

edit: and psst...I don't think that any league could be considered "major" after only 10 years of existence. Those European cats have about 100 years head start on us.

 

Unless yours is so bad, it's basically universally reviled. See Wiz.

 

How much money do teams like ManU and Barcelona make selling their jerseys around the world? It's not petty stuff. Merchandising is very important.

 

Yes, merchandising is important. But what is so mystical about the words Manchester United that make them sell millions of shirts in Malaysia?

It's not the name. It's the team. And a team is more than its name.