City vs United
by El Kabong (2018-04-07 15:21:38)

What's the difference in designation?

Is it just the way to distinguish between two teams in a common metro area when the teams don't use mascots?


In England, teams with the United moniker represent mergers
by fontoknow  (2018-04-07 16:32:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

of multiple football clubs. That's at least the usual use of term. MU was just a rebranding of a company team associated with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. It was originally known as the Newton Heath LYR Football Club. The united name comes from four business men taking over the ownership interest from the railroad and rebranding the team.

In the case of MU, they play in Old Trafford, which is a community of Greater Manchester. Old Trafford is not just the name of the stadium, in fact there is another, older more historic Old Trafford (Old Trafford Cricket Grounds) just down the road from Old Trafford the football stadium.

Teams with the City moniker typically mean they were established in their city proper. Like Manchester City.

Also note, that many many of these teams were established as departments of larger sports clubs (literally membership organizations like a country club in the United States). The names of the football teams took the name of the sporting club. This is very common throughout Europe.

The first known use of United was by the Sheffield United Cricket Club. This was an amalgamation of severl local cricket clubs ... the Sheffield United Association Football Club was a department of the Sheffield United Cricket Club ... hence their name.


Thanks, fontoknow!
by subalumt  (2018-04-09 18:45:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I've been a casual follower of UK Football since working as an Intern in Leeds back in 1980 (AIESEC student exchange).

That's a fascinating bit of history; very cool.

Thanks again!


This is why I hate MLS team names.
by someguy  (2018-04-09 15:03:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

They are completely contrived. Real Salt Lake is the most egregious example. But DC United, Atlanta United FC, and all the other FC's are offenders as well.


What's wrong with FC's? Or Sporting KC?
by spade  (2018-04-09 16:48:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Should they have mascot names like most American sports teams?


We don't call it "football" here.
by someguy  (2018-04-10 12:31:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In America, it's soccer. Good for Columbus and Chicago for properly naming themselves a "soccer club". The rest are lame and contrived, ignorantly attempting to poach of off others' tradition without respect for how the names came to be. Real Madrid and Real Sociedad were both sponsored by Spanish royalty - hence "Real". Real Salt Lake? Pathetic. I'm sure MLS team names - the inconsistent smattering of FC, Sporting, Real, etc - is an international joke. I couldn't care less if they have mascots or not, but create your own damn traditions instead of co-opting those of more successful leagues and clubs.


I have no problem with calling it football clubs
by spade  (2018-04-10 15:26:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

You could argue naming mascots was just as contrived back in the 1920s


I don't think the rest of the world really cares
by wcnitz  (2018-04-10 13:00:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I think we get mocked for plastic chants and our broadcasting far more than for club names.


The fake chants are the same problem as the fake names. *
by someguy  (2018-04-10 13:28:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


What makes a chant a fake chant? *
by NDBass  (2018-04-10 13:57:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Be authentic
by fontoknow  (2018-04-10 11:45:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Sporting KC is clearly a lift from Sporting Lisbon.

Real Salt Lake City is just stupid.

But I think Houston Dynamo is awful. Yes, let's play homage to state sponsored clubs from the Soviet Union and their satellite states.


I would assume you hate the Utah Jazz then? *
by spade  (2018-04-11 07:39:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


hate is a strong word
by fontoknow  (2018-04-11 11:17:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

it's not strong enough for how I feel about the Utah Jazz.


Fair enough, haha *
by spade  (2018-04-12 10:18:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


On the Dynamo
by HTownND  (2018-04-10 15:11:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

That name was chosen for a few reasons

But it has an interesting story after moving from San Jose, including Oliver Luck and changing the first name after pissing off the local Latino community.

The association with the Moscow and East Berlin teams wasn't the main reason.


At least it wasn't Red Army Houston
by fontoknow  (2018-04-10 15:59:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

"In a communist dictatorship, sports franchises obviously aren’t for-profit businesses the way they are under capitalism. Instead, the major soccer teams in Eastern Bloc countries were founded as club teams for various state-run entities. You’ll see repeated names throughout former Warsaw Pact countries: CSKA for the army, Lokomotiv for the transportation ministry, and Dynamo for the secret police."


I'm aware of the Stassi ties
by HTownND  (2018-04-10 17:34:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I just think it wasn't why Houston chose the name.


But they have a history of making mistakes and realizing after the fact.

1836 and Dynamo.

They weren't trying to honor the USSR teams, it was a nice little tie in, and then people pointed it out what it actually meant.

Again, MLS being cute, and not realizing what they were actually doing. The meaning of the word is why they chose it, not because European teams used it. That second point just helped seal the deal.


Because we already know who they are
by HTownND  (2018-04-10 10:28:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If it was the Atlanta Falcons FC or Atlanta Braves FC, that would make sense.

Taking out the stupidity of Atlanta United, we already know they are the football/soccer team in town. It's not like football/soccer in Europe where there are football/soccer and basketball and other sports run through a "club" that all have the same name, so we need to distinguish.

It's all fairly dumb.

I don't think they need to have mascots, but we shouldn't have any United teams in MLS (unless a couple of lower league teams join together to form a new MLS team) or FCs (unless they use other team names, which they won't). It's all just trying too hard and is sort of insulting.


I don't care too much about using FC.
by NDBass  (2018-04-09 18:59:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I just find it funny that teams in a league called Major League Soccer would label themselves football clubs. It strikes me as trying to hard.

Atlanta doubled down by using "United" and "FC". They claim the "United" represents uniting the city, but that's all marketing crap. I think Patrick Reed got a louder roar as he approached the 18th green yesterday than happened at the name reveal party when they announced Atlanta United FC. Could've only been a better name if they tossed in Deportivo.


Yes *
by miamioh_irishfan  (2018-04-09 18:46:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Thanks! *
by spade  (2018-04-08 19:29:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Some history and a comparison...
by wiNDycityfan  (2018-04-07 15:56:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Manchester City and Manchester United are not based in the same city. United took on the Manchester name, but they are based outside the city borders and have been for around 95% of its existance. Manchester City have always been in the city.

Man Utd were formed in 1878 as Newton Heath FC, a town outside of Manchester (similar to Southend and London; no one says Southend are a part of London). Newton Heath was added to the city in around 1892, 14 years after the club was first formed. In 1910 United again left the city to move to the Borough of Trafford, an area next to, but not connected to Manchester. On the other hand, Manchester City were formed in 1880 as St Marks, West Gorton FC. West Gorton is an area of east Manchester.

In terms of comparison, probably New York Jets and New York Giants would be an American sports team comparison, Jets with success very early in its formation, then the Giants taking reign. Should have the Jets become more dominant in the last 5 years it’d have been the perfect analogy, as City has had the most success during this stretch, but largely in the shadow of United for almost throughout history.

B108_AE6_C_8_FC0_4_BAF_B7_AF_056608_A42_BFF


Nice explanation. One nit. The Giants have been around
by steelhop  (2018-04-09 10:34:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

way longer than the Jets. The Giants came into existence in 1925 and joined the NFL and were very successful. The Jets were originally a founding member of the AFL in 1959 as the Titans of New York.


Comparisons to American sports are really hard
by fontoknow  (2018-04-09 12:11:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

since territorial franchises don't exist in European football.

There are seven teams from Greater Manchester in the top 3 levels of the English Football Pyramid. Bolton and Wigan being the strongest of the other sides historically. There have been times in recent memory where all four sides have been in the top tier.

That would be like Chicago having four teams in NFL.