If you haven't already heard, Philadelphia's new MLS teams has officially been dubbed "Philadelphia Union".
It's not the worst thing that could have happened, and the crest and colors are fairly nice. It's good to see the new club follow Seattle's lead and actually listen to their prospective fan base, rather than to run off on their own and screw everything up.
Since I don't have time to go in-depth on Philly's name, I thought I'd re-post something I wrote on the issue of club naming way back in the formative days of the blog (i.e., four months ago).
If you've already read it, I apologize.
Today, a subject much lighter than my usual fare, but one which seems to inflame more passion than most; MLS naming conventions. Philadelphia is following Seattle's lead and is conducting a naming contest. The four rumored choices certainly don't smack of creativity, and there is much discussion on the subject (don't click if you're offended by four letter words for the male anatomy).
In the early years of MLS, the league took a purely "American" approach to naming teams. The founding members of the league were given ridiculous nicknames that not only adhered to our traditional city-nickname format, but also made use of an ugly late 90's trend of singular nicknames (i.e. Galaxy, Revolution, United, Burn, Wiz, Crew, Clash, Mutiny). Only two teams were given names outside of this convention: New York/New Jersey MetroStars (hideous for other reasons) and Colorado Rapids. Kansas City was changed from "Wiz" to "Wizards" before the '97 season, a change brought on by a lawsuit rather than a sudden awakening on the part of the organization.
Recent years have seen a reversal; in the new MLS, teams are striving to emulate the aura of European sides with names like "Real" and "FC". Real Salt Lake is truly unfortunate, a name that went way too far towards a European model, using the "Real" designation when it's truly not warranted (for background, please see the history of Real Madrid). Toronto FC is derided on several levels in North American soccer circles, both for the bare bones nature of the name and for the use of "FC" in a country (and culture) where the game is called "soccer" rather than "football" (not to mention being officially "FC" and not "Football Club"). In a refreshing twist, Seattle's effort to pin a Euro-name on their new expansion club was met with a write-in campaign and a compromise in Seattle Sounders FC. It seems the best of both worlds, although again we see "FC" where perhaps "SC" is more appropriate.
The whole thing is one big mess, the type of issue that seems innocuous, but may indicate the flavor of the game in the U.S. If we let ourselves be led around by our tails when it comes to naming our teams, how can we expect to establish our own identity in any aspect of the beautiful game?
I've always leaned towards the Euro model, if only because the traditional American one has led to such abominations when the decisions are left to the minds of all-to-clever marketing departments. The Sounders result could represent a sea-change going forward, but only if Philly doesn't follow up that success story with a return to the recent norm.
I won't be a Philadelphia fan, so I'll recuse myself from the voting; if I was to choose, I guess I would lukewarmly select Philadelphia City. The name seems the most appropriate of the rumored four, and gives Philly fans a chance to organically nickname their side.
According to the MLS Philly website, voting will start on the January 19th; I guess it's a good sign that they appear in tune with the Internet rumor mill.
Feel free to state your opinion, especially if you're from Philly and plan to support the team.
I think I still would have preferred "City", but "Union" isn't a bad second choice.
