They have been unofficially known as the Loons for a while (since their NASL days), but they won’t get rid of United. The fans threw a FIT when it was rumored Minnesota would have to give up the United because Atlanta also chose it. Thankfully it was not the case.
The Supporters’ Section (the rowdy fans behind the goal) is one of the BIGGEST reasons that people in Atlanta have taken to the team - they set the atmosphere and make it a rocking good time for the whole 2 hours. It’s generally that atmosphere that gets people coming back.
Yeah…I’m not agreeing with the cause-effect relationship you’re trying to imply here.
The Wiz and the Burn were mocked because they are ridiculously stupid names. Not because they are American style. The Sounders, Fire, Timbers, Earthquake, Revolution, Crew and others all are doing fine.
Of the top 5 teams in 2017 attendance relative to seating capacity include Atlanta, KC and 3 teams with Americanized names. The bottom 5 have FC Dallas at the bottom, NYC FC and then 3 other Americanized teams (though Dynamo is a grey area). The 2016 standings are no different. In short, whether a team has a Euro-trash name or an American style name seems to have no bearing at all on attendance figures.
The Wiz and Burn were remarketed to distance itself from the early years of MLS. Sporting KC for one has been wildly successful since they changed their colors/name/etc. And why is the Burn stupid, but the Fire are not?
And no one in the world thinks the Crew are doing fine. They are about to be moved to Austin!! The Revs have been an issue for a while (mostly because Bob Kraft doesn’t seem to really care about them). The Fire have had stadium/attendance issues for over a decade (a terrible lease deal with the city of Bridgeview). The Earthquake just moved into a nice new stadium (Avaya), but we’ll see how they continue - especially since they are terrible on the field.
The Sounders and Timbers really are thriving with Americanized nicknames and those have the benefit of tradition - they are the old NASL names and the cities have had them for decades in various leagues (and the Sounders also added “FC” when they moved up to MLS). Aside from them the Galaxy are doing fine, but they’ve been the big money club since the league began.
Also it is a bit disingenous, IMO, to compare NYCFC in terms of attendance relating to seating capacity because, IIRC, they are 3rd or 4th in the league in terms of attendance per match.
Generally speaking, Americanized nicknames have been an easy target for derision from the league’s beginning, so clubs moved away from them. And the new expansion targets have all had European-ized nicknames - from Orlando City SC and New York City FC in 2015, to Atlanta United FC and Minnesota United FC in 2017, to Nashville SC and FC Cincinnati in 2019 and 2020. Now we may have some Americanized nicknames if Sacramento Republic FC and Phoenix Rising FC are chosen for the next couple spots, but it seems to be against trend.
Yes, as I mentioned, vintage nicknames have been well received. Likely because it, along with the move to European naming conventions (generally happened around the same time) signaled a move in the league’s marketing from family friendly to young urban fans, hipsters, and millennials. Vintage stuff is generally well received among that group.
They haven’t had the same derision as the MLS original names as they are seen as having tradional ties as opposed to coming up with something cringey (there is a reason that San Jose changed their name in 1999 from the Clash to the old NASL Earthquakes). And the old names especially haven’t run into derision by the European soccer fans (of which there is a much larger number than MLS fans) that MLS has been attempting to court since they almost went under (the strategy has been far more successful than the previous soccer mom family friendly strategy that came before).
For those that don’t have a vintage NASL or long time USL club name, European naming conventions have dominated (the last 5 expansion teams and the next 2)
I’ve never actually understood why teams name themselves after their area’s biggest disaster personally. But in that case, the Wizards (of KC) was named for the Wizard of Oz (we’re not in Kansas anymore) which may be the biggest thing that ever happen to Kansas (and I know that Kansas City Wizards played in Kansas City, Missouri - though Sporting KC plays in KC, Kansas -, but close enough…)
Was tried in the American style. It didn’t work. It almost killed the league. Two teams folded. Moving to European and vintage names actually helped make this a reality. A lot of fan led culture has arisen in the last decade. Heck, I am watching El traffico right now (LAFC v. LA Galaxy) and LAFC is loud, chanting, and jumping in their safe standing supporters section even though it’s their first season.
El Traffico?:eek:
OP, for someone who doesn’t get soccer you sure know a lot of history.
I agree, Real Salt Lake sounds awful. Should have tried something more American. I get why Republican Salt Lake is out. But Presidential Salt Lake?
Or Atletico Salt Lake?
Along with two other teams, and the one which is nicknamed Real in Spain isn’t Madrid. But what can we do, y’all talk funny… (no hitting! aaaay!)
Cerezo Osaka
Yokohama F. Marinos
Eh, those two have gone for “exotic Spanish” but the names make sense, they refer to things which the cities themselves are famous for (“cherry trees” and “navy men”, respectively; I avoided sailors because the term used here refers to the higher ranks). And Yokohama is Pamplona’s sister city and the landing place of our boy Javi; they’ve got stronger bonds to Spain than other areas of Japan.
Names in MLS are an ongoing problem; I wasn’t a fan of the old names (for the most part), and I’m not a fan of the trend to make your team sound like it’s a European football club. In my mind, if you’re going to do that, come up with something that is appropriate for the area. “FC” is fine, as would be “SC”, or “AC” I suppose, though, of course, the real problem with those additions to a name is that, in MLS, they aren’t clubs, but franchises. Ask Rochester about that. :mad:
A much better change in MLS has to do with the uniforms. The ones most teams sported in the early years were cringe-worthy. Now, most teams have kits that actually look like something a soccer team would wear, though there is a startlingly strong preference for mono-white and mono-black. Of the old, original kits, only DC United, as I recall, had something resembling a real soccer jersey (the Crew switched to something decent by year 3, IIRC).
It seems silly to complain about the names and such, given that, as pointed out above, the renaissance of the league has accompanied the attempt to ape European soccer clubs and traditions. Obviously, the League is doing something right, even if some of it seems pretty silly.
But I agree that Real Salt Lake is just ridiculous. They should have gone with Atletico, instead.
El Trafico actually. Added an additional f . It was a name come up by a fan that stuck… you know the organic stuff that the OP decries is not happening ;).
To be fair, it wasn’t just an MLS issue. Across all of the North American pro sports, there were a lot of truly unfortunate uniform design choices being made in the 1990s. :smack:
“El Trafico” sounds to me to be analogous to the “subway series” when New York baseball teams play each other. And the use of Spanish probably reflects Los Angeles’ Spanish-speaking history, not Spain’s (well, OK, indirectly, of course, but from a time before football existed).
(no hitting! aaaay!)