MLS Teams: What's In A Name? Houston....do we have a Problem?

Written By : Alan Clark, Wednesday June 8, 2005. Updated 1/28/06.

What's In a Name?

As a Brit I grew up surrounded by the `greatest game on earth', it's traditions, it's rivalries and it's passion. I lived in Scotland, tasting the heat of the Auld Firm, and in the NorthWest of England, during the region's soccer glory days of Everton, Liverpool and then Manchester United.

With one notable exception - Milton Keynes Dons - the 2004 reincarnation of the 1988 FA Cup winning Wimbledon FC, relocation is not something that happens in soccer. As a consequence, there are not many times when a team has changed name, nor have their been new names created from new teams. The story with MK Dons is that Wimbledon did not fold, but in the absence of a permanent home and dwindling numbers through the turnstiles, the Board decided to relocate the team to Milton Keynes - the largest city in England that was not home to a professional football team already. MK was apparently second choice, Dublin, Ireland, was the original target but the League's ruling body dismissed such a radical relocation. But I digress..

The point is that in England the naming process is very different - most names have been around for in excess of a hundred years. Outside of America there is also a key difference - most clubs have a name, and a nickname - let's take Manchester United FC for example (and only because they are the most popular worldwide), their nickname is `The Red Devils'.

In America, the approach is different; teams nicknames are usually one-in-the-same as the team name; Rochester Raging Rhinos; Kansas City Wizards; San Jose Earthquakes. And then there are the exceptions; FC Dallas; Northern Virginia FC (NOVA FC); DC United.

Personally, I've always thought that to adopt a nickname in the official name is a step away from tradition - football tradition; my traditions. I often hear raging debate on the boards of Big Soccer, amongst other sources, as to what is an appropriate name; about America's soccer identity; respecting worldwide traditions and so on. I think it sounds somewhat tacky, cheap.and inherently `minor league'.

The question is...what is the right answer? Is there even one? I have been reminded on many an occasion that I am in America now, not in England (stopping a small step away from telling me to return there if I don't like it).

With MLS having ushered in two new expansion clubs in 2005, and with both relocation and further expansion talk burning like wild fire, names for the potential new locations are rampant. Everyone has an opinion and it's this diversity that made me sit down and write this.

On the radar over the next 2-3 years are potentially: Toronto, San Antonio, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Houston, St Louis, Miami (?!), Vancouver, Montreal, Seattle, New York City and so on.

So, should these potential new franchises follow history or continue the Americanized trend? A brand is the most important thing for a team, the name is it's identity. And let's face it, MLS doesn't have a good track record. Since the 1996 inaugural season, MLS' owner/operators have renamed three teams - 25% of the original franchises (and even ignoring contraction) The Burn, Clash, and Wiz are all now [thankfully] consigned to the history books.

Of course, the primary target of an MLS team is not a European nor South American fan (or at least not those based abroad), but to it's core, namely the American consumer. As such, should the brand not reflect this?

2005's new entries were not inspiring; CD Chivas USA - barely tolerable but at least there is an obvious reference to the parent club in Guadalajara; and Real Salt Lake which is, well, frankly a seemingly random Spanish reference in Utah. Not much logic there. And in the absence of a meaningful relationship between RSL and *insert legitimate'REAL Real, then this seems like a rather cheap gimmick, trying to be passed off as a tip of the hat. That said, the RSL fans seem to be buying into it.even if no one else is.

Possibly the most disturbing rumor at present must be the potential purchase, relocation and renaming of the SJ Earthquakes (already on their 2nd name) by Club America of Mexico. Yes, you guessed it - Club America USA has been touted and I hope and pray (and I'm an atheist!) that this never, but never, sees the light of day.

With so many names to choose from, not just from England - though it would make sense to pick a name that makes sense in this country's primary language, namely English - surely the next generation of franchises can hit the mark without selling their souls.

*Addendum (1/26/06): 

Fresh on the back of this week's Houston '1836' annoucement of the new team name for the former SJ Earthquakes franchise, there's been plenty of dissention in the camp about the name and why a 'europoser' name was picked - again - in MLS.  Infact, I've already alluded elsewhere that actually, it's less of a copy of Europe and more an established American norm.

In Europe, the number usually represents the year the team was formed. So, this isn't the case with Houston, being the year Houston itself was formed and not the team.

 

On the other hand, in America, the numbers are usually something significant to the city or region the team is based in - Phaldelphia 76ers, or San Francisco 49ers. So this is consistent with the Houston naming.

 

Slagging it off is just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's not as bad as it seems, and certainly not in the FC Dallas or ReAL Salt Lake league as blatant rip-offs. Thankfully, it's also not in the Burn, Wiz or Clash's league either.

 

All in all, I think it's a reasonable name, with Thirty Sixers, or just Sixers as their nickname works for me.