My soccer team appears to have picked up a nickname (and it sucks)

So St. Louis City SC has only been in the league for a few seasons, and I guess they’ve been copying the Euro model and waiting for their nickname to develop organically. Well, it appears they have one: I heard an announcer call them “The Loons.”

Yeah that blows. 1) Loons (or maybe the announcer thinks he’s being slick and calling them the Louns) aren’t really associated with Missouri. They fly through here during migration season, but they’re not our most beloved bird. 2) That’s already Minnesota United nicknames. 3) It’s not The Archies, which is what I’ve been angling for since before the first season.

“Saint Louis City SC” was enough of a tongue twister itself.

I’m surprised the team didn’t have a naming contest.

They have a name. What the OP is talking about is an unofficial nickname, which, as he notes, is something that, for non-US soccer teams, usually developed organically through usage by the fans and/or the press.

For example, the English team Birmingham City F.C. is nicknamed, and often referred to, as “the Blues” (after the primary color on their uniforms), but it’s not their official name.

In the U.S.'s Major League Soccer, the first generation of teams used the more traditional North American naming scheme of [City] [Nickname], e.g., Chicago Fire, San Jose Avalanche, Columbus Crew; in those cases, the “nickname” is chosen by the team management, and is an official part of the team’s name. But, as time has gone on, and as there’s been a growth in the U.S. of fans following non-U.S. teams, MLS teams have increasingly taken on naming conventions more typical of foreign leagues, including the OP’s “St. Louis City FC.”

Yeah some MLS teams appear to be copying/have copied the Euro model and waited for organic nicknames. Orlando City SC came into the league, fully cooked (as it were), with the nickname The Lions, and their mascot, Kingston. And no, I have no idea what Lions have to do with Orlando or what Kingston has to do with Lions and/or Orlando. A fan on YouTube told me that they hired a European firm to build up the city’s soccer culture from the ground up before their team hit the field. (Pic below)

St. Louis already had a strong soccer culture before the (sigh) Loons showed up. I heard them called “the greatest soccer city in America without a soccer team” back when MLS was discussing awarding a franchise to the city. But I guess the team waited for the team’s fans and the local press to develop our own unique take on our team.

Nitpick (sorry): Birmingham are just ‘Blues’.

The lion is king of the jungle.

I’m pretty confident that’s the connection there. No idea about the rest of it though.

Total WAG, but is it just that “Louis” and “Loon” start the same phonetically?

Yeah, the problem with letting nature take it’s course on nicknames is that sometimes nature is an ass. A nickname contest could have provided guidance to something more acceptable to team and fans.

I appreciate the correction!

Probably a pretty good WAG.

Strange they’re moving forward with this since it’s so tied to Minnesota United already. They go by The Loons, their logo is a loon, their mascot is a loon, they sell Loon Juice at the stadium, and I already own this sweet Loons hoodie.

It’s not clear to what extent they’re “moving forward” with the Loons.

The OP seems to indicate that it’s one announcer using it. If team management is encouraging the announcers to try to come up with something “organically,” it’s entirely possible that, once they hear he’s using the nickname of another team, they’ll tell him to try something else.

I’d push for something BBQ-related. Like the Briskets. Imagine the cross-promotion you can do with concessions!

Interestingly, the Central Florida Zoo and Botanical Gardens in Orlando doesn’t have Lions, but Disney’s Animal Kingdom does. The whole marketing thing is pretty Mickey Mouse.

Are you sure about this, OP?

I have watched most of the City matches this season (sadly…) and the only time I can remember hearing “Loons” was when they were playing Minnesota United last Saturday.

ETA: There also appears to be nothing about this on the team social media or any reporting from the last few matches. They all refer to the opposition (Minnesota) as the Loons.

Well it appears that I may have misunderstood when I heard the announcer use the term “Loons,” but from context …. eh, doesn’t matter. I have egg on my face.

Tht still leaves us with a team in its third season without a nickname. I shall continue to advocate for The Archies. Or the Riblets.

FWIW, the team appropriated the name “St. Louligans for its supporters, apparently taken from an existing minor league club.

That’s also how most of the old baseball teams in the US got their names.

Indeed, and then, by the 1910s or 1920s, they had formalized those nicknames, officially and legally incorporating them into their names.

Did they get this organically nor was it already in place when the team first hit the field, like Orlando and the Lions?

I’d go with the Archers myself, but close enough.