Australia has FC teams too and Spanish and Peruvian Clubs use the word Sporting. There is no one-way to name a club, nor should their be.

Except Jazz, Utah should not have a team named the Jazz. Just kidding they get to call themselves whatever they want too, but the NBA is MUCH more egregious in poorly named teams.

Should they have changed it? Probably, but the certainly didn't pick it.

The Lakers make no sense in waterless LA. There is very little Jazz in Utah.

And keeping a name because of the franchase didn't stop the Sonics from rebranding.

That fields a football team.

Is Sporting KC a multisport athletics club?

Real SLC is dumb.

Houston Dynamo is dumb, but historic.

Sporting is a loan-word in Portuguese. To me, it doesn't really matter how many teams they have, it's still a loan-word.
Football is a loan-word to refer to Soccer. Just like Clube is a loan word in Spanish as is Sporting. I think more loan-words the better!

Real SLC IS stupid, but only because the king didn't recognize it, not because it's a loan-word. And if the king DOES ever grant it, that would be the coolest team ever.

Dynamo is silly and kinda cool cause it's harkens back. Really interesting to see a railroad city use "Locamotive city". That would be wild, but a lot silly.

is always stupid.

Sporting is a loan word to refer to a multisport athletic club in in Portugal. To loan it back to an American Soccer club that is not membership based is what is stupid.

Football is only a loan word to the american language ... But in America football is a different sport.

Dynamo is silly because it's Soviet. Or if they are named after the german dynamo teams, it's even sillier since Dynamo teams were all Stasi sponsored.

Using these names is silly because there is an opportunity to do something organic with MLS names. I like team names like the LA Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Colorado Rapids, SJ Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers. This are organic, and mostly track with North American Naming Conventions. If we're going to go with European conventions words like Sporting, and AC having meanings. We shouldn't use them unless those meanings track in the American use case.

First, there are lots of 'sportings' in England so it's not loaned to Portuguese and then loaned back to English.

Australia has a few FCs even though Football there means something totally different from soccer.

I think you just really don't like this and that's fine, but I'm only pointing out this isn't a MLS-only gimmick. Although the gimmick of a 'United' team really should be from a merger of two teams.

And Honduras has a King appointed Real team, so yes King Felipe could appoint (or anoint) Real SL a true Real team if he so desired.

calling anything a football club, when to most Americans, they aren't playing football, they are playing soccer, doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Now? Eff 'em. If anything, American football - good old handegg - has the absolute worst naming of all American sports. By far. Where, in the regular course of play, it is a penalty to USE YOUR FOOT.

When I'm sitting with friends with a hoodie on that says Fußball-Club Bayern München, I really don't give a shit if it has ambiguity to them.

It makes total sense

I have no issue with either. It should be up to the owners and supporters to decide.

My issue is calling something 'united' when it wasn't founded on anything getting actually united.

1) Great to see you post back here again

2) I agree, but for some reason, MLS has this bug up their arse about using European nomenclature. It's absurd.

3) Chicago Fire SC is, was, and would be one of the best names in the MLS. It's perfect, including the logo. They shouldn't change a thing.

Not with Chicago Fire FC.

AC Chicago Fire would also be OK.

Sadly, since cutting the cord, I'm not watching live soccer or many other live sports, so I don't have a lot to contribute.