Grahame Jones of the LA Times takes a look at the expansion teams coming into the league and what they might be called. As Grahame points out, it seems like a minor detail in the grand scheme of things but it's something that must be figured out.
He points out the existence of St. Louis Soccer United and wonders if MLS could stand to have two United clubs.
That might confuse non-soccer fans but if St. Louis gets a team and names it United, it probably wouldn't be too confusing to us. American sports is transfixed on city names and nicknames as part of the full team name but many clubs in the world don't have their city names on their logo or as part of their name or anything. The Buenos Aires xeneizes? Not quite.
I really think the perfect name for the Philly team would be:
ReplyDeleteBen Franklin F.C.
A person's name for a team is unique in American sports and even in world soccer. It would be fitting given the city and the Sons of Ben supporters club.
How about Tecos USA, or Gallos Blancos USA, or Toros Nexa USA? Seriously...
ReplyDeleteA person's name for a team is unique in American sports and even in world soccer.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ on the unique in world soccer thing. I'm thinking of: Coronel Bolognesi, Vélez Sarsfield, Melgar FBC, and a host of others throughout the world...
totally agree, LB. If St. Louis and the rest of them want to be 'United' go ahead and let 'em.
ReplyDeleteEspecially with how most clubs are going about their youth academy set ups by 'UNITING' the local youth clubs it's a name that actually fits, and makes sense. DC United made no sense at it's inception since they weren't 'uniting' anything football related.