Seattle MLS: A Local Club or a Global Brand?
By Tom Dunmore • Mar 26th, 2008 • Category: American soccer • 27 responses
They were supposed to be the model of a people’s club in Major League Soccer. Television comedian Drew Carey trumpeted Seattle’s new MLS team — to begin play in 2009 — as democracy-in-action. The fans would vote on the General Manager. And they would even get to choose the name.
Then it turned out that the name many fans wanted did not suit MLS’ thinking. It was reported that when Seattle MLS presented their list of name choices to MLS, it included the name Sounders, a name with links to soccer in the city going back to 1974. It had been the name of the NASL team from its founding that year until its folding in 1983, and had then been taken up by the new USL team in 1994, running to the present day. Referencing adjacent Puget Sound, the name was chosen by fans of the original NASL team.
MLS headquarters, though, did not see “Sounders” as a forward-thinking enough name for the global brand they wanted, when Seattle MLS apparently presented it to the league as one of several choices they wanted to offer fans (the league owns the trademarks and must approve names).
Commissioner Don Garber said that “I have great respect for the Sounders and the club’s history. While we should celebrate the past, we believe the MLS Seattle team should be about where they are headed tomorrow and help position the club globally.” Seattle MLS GM Adrian Hanauer toed this line, commenting that “We want to start a new tradition and a new direction and we’d like our name to reflect our attempt to have a global connection on and off the field,”
The fact the name had existed for over three decades cuts no ice with the Don or Seattle MLS, it seems. The names MLS would accept were Seattle FC, Seattle Alliance and Seattle Republic. The first choice seems to be a fudge: given there’s already an “FC” in the league (Toronto), that hardly squares with Garber’s recent comment that “we are very focused on our teams creating separate, distinct identities.” The second, Alliance, sounds like the name of a bank or insurance company; the third, perhaps a coffee shop (I suppose that would be fitting).
The ball was tossed back to Seattle MLS who now had to communicate to the fans the news Sounders would not be one of the three name choices offered to them in an online vote. And boy, did they make a hash of it. After it was revealed Sounders would not be a choice, many fans expressed their disappointment at it on the internet. The Seattle PI newspaper picked up the story of fans’ bewilderment at the choices, giving Seattle MLS its first negative press.
So how did Seattle MLS react to this first test of their image as a people’s club? With a quite bizarre rant on their official website complaining about fans complaining (the following text has since been removed from the site, but has been reproduced on the Goal Seattle blog).
The Seattle club’s founding fathers–Joe Roth, Adrian Hanauer, Paul Allen and Carey–have settled on the three finalists, which will be unveiled Mar. 25, and may or may not include a name you’re fond of.
If not, get over it. And vote.
This is democracy. This process promises to be emotional. The club has taken every effort to make sure it is fair and transparent, yet democracy, like comedy, is not always pretty.
“Get over it”? As the Goal Seattle blog noted, “What the hell? I am sure that Frank MacDonald had only the best intentions, but talk about adding fuel to the fire, then trying to put the fire out by spitting in the faces of longtime fans. Ugh.
“Power to the people? Those in MLS HQ in NY? In Kirkland? Certainly not on the streets of Seattle.
“I had hoped this whole naming process would be ‘transparent,’ but what it really is beginning to show is that Seattle MLS has a ‘concept’ they are selling, and in trying so hard to sell it they have already started losing touch with some of their potential fans.”
Cue more bad press and bad vibes for Seattle MLS. One can only imagine the wheels grinding in Seattle and at MLS headquarters at this growing public relations disaster, spoiling what had heretofore been a dream start for Seattle MLS, with over 13,000 season ticket deposits sold already.
To their credit, they did backtrack slightly, as a “write-in” option appeared on the online naming vote. Wouldn’t it be sweet if Seattle’s fans forced MLS to accept the locally-orientated, historic name instead of a “global brand” suited name instead via the power of the ballot?
Tom Dunmore is the editor of Pitch Invasion.
Email this author | All posts by Tom Dunmore
I kinda understand where the MLS and ‘The Don’ are coming from, wanting to build up a new brand and such…that and the Sounders are already an active USL team in the same city. Those are my two big hang-ups. It’d be one thing if a town took on a defunct name. Suppose New York actually got a second team down the road…and they wanted to call it ‘The Cosmos.’ I’d have no real issue with that.
But MLS, ‘The Don’ and Seattle management should have given the fans multiple options and then whittled it down to just one through online voting. They wanna talk about democracy in action? That’s a primary right there! For an MLS name!
I’m rooting for the write-in vote, but there’s got to be another name out there besides Sounders…
Perhaps SuperSonics might be better?
Haha, yea theres the “defunct name” Kevin just spoke of…
Garber and MLS should have no imput when it comes to club names. It’s clear that they have no concept on names that work. Seattle FC is fine but Alliance and Republic? MLS is showing they are out of touch or this is just a cruel ploy to force the name Seattle FC.
Micah, I think MLS prefers Alliance and Republic (don’t they sound like names from Star Wars?) to FC — which seems to have been put in as a compromise towards a more traditional name, given Sounders didn’t make the cut. What they want, I think, are names that “resonate globally”, whatever the fuck that means.
It means that MLS, as an organization has visions of Lalas-esque world superclubs, while they ought to be cultivating their clubs to the standard - on the field and in the stands - of something altogether more earthbound and realistic. It used to be that MLS was criticized by the uncharitable for being ultra-synthetic and corporate; now, in a much more insidious way, they seem to like cloaking the corporateness in world soccer culture imagery (Embrace the colors! Wave the flags!) and “fan power” initiatives, minus the fan power. The more this goes on, the more quease-inducing it is. All style, so little substance.
Metro, my take is more that they are selling the idea of Lalas-esque superclubs, and that Hanauer has bought into the image in this particular case (Hanauer’s family has previous when it comes to dodgy names, his dad owned the “Hawaiians” in the WFL (yes, I am old)).
I tend to believe that the reality here is much more about intellectual property rights (reportedly, Seattle Sounders was never trademarked nor copyrighted) than about global domination. If that is right, the thing I don’t get is why MLS and the ownership group have chosen such an ugly figleaf (and one full of holes) to hid behind. Better to be straight with the supporters and explain that the current legal situation didn’t allow them sufficient control over the “brand”. When Arsenal found themselves in a similar situation with their badge, they were able to defuse a good portion of the negative fan reaction to their Disneyfied reworking simply by letting everyone know why they had to make a change.
I thought it was the cheeziest thing I had ever heard when it was first floated, but Emerald City FC is better than any of the three “official” choices right now.
We Seattle fans are passionate about our soccer history and especially the name “Seattle Sounders”. Whenever given a chance, we have expressed that by wide margins.
And now thaqt MLS Seattle has correctly given us a write in option, you can bet we will take advantage of it. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jyQTeqH8k9M
Don’t be surprised if the write-in “Seattle Sounders” again wins this vote.
[…] Don’t ask the fans if you don’t like their answers (Pitch Invasion) […]
What could be more international and of global appeal than a team with tradition and history?
What could be more international and of global appeal than effectively promoting a lower level club?
…and FYI: the Seattle Sounders USL team will very likely be defunct in a Seattle MLS world.
I always thought ‘Sounders’ was a retarded name, but I’m not from Seattle so perhaps the local relevance is lost on non-Seattle folk.
That said, the trademark issues involved in rolling it back over to MLS from USL has to be a nightmare; even with current Sounders owner being a part owner of Seattle MLS. I’m sure that more than anything else is what put a stop to it. Purchasing trademarks is a tricky business. MLS talks about being a global brand and that is certainly not lost on the trademark owners who would no doubt ask for a king’s ransom for it. I mean, would you sell a name to someone on the cheap knowing that one day it may be a billion dollar a year enterprise? Only an idiot would.
The part that concerns me more is Garber’s non-sense about not letting another team be ‘United’ to create unique identities. Yet, there are 50 ‘city name FC’ already and is offering that up as a choice for Seattle. He obviously doesn’t ‘get’ that United actually means something and isn’t a nickname.
Also, last time I checked the ‘United’ thing hasn’t confused people with Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle et. al
People who live in the Puget SOUND area = “Sounders.” This isn’t rocket science, papa bear. The club originally was named after —– US!
Want an idea of what’s happening here. Go to saveoursounders.com
And, remember to write in: Seattle Sounders
The only argument I can see MLS having is the trademark problems and the thought that fans won’t understand the team has gone from the USL to MLS. If the second happens its likely the fault of the city and league for not advertising enough and educating the populace.
Anyhow I hope Sounders wins the vote because the other names are just terribly boring.
What about the “Seattle Fury?” Its a word that is often associated with Sounders (well Sound in “The _______ and the Fury,” yet it seems novel and forward thinking enough to be at least considered by MLS. It also grasps onto Euro footballing traditions (see: Spain’s La Furia Roja). so why not throw this option into the mix?
As much as it disgusts me (truly) to say anything good about the Fl…ahem, Sounders, the name has years of history behind it and a true North American soccer lineage. To just toss the name aside is disrespectful to both the fans who’ve followed the team for years, and will probably constitute your most rabid fanbase, and to the history of soccer in Shi…that town on the Puget Sound. I’m glad to see the true supporters step up and make their voices heard in fighting for their team’s history. We all feel the same way down here…I may have even voted for Sounders in the poll, though I will never admit that either way. And the line of thought regarding ‘positioning the club globally’ goes right to the heart of all that’s wrong with MLS. And, G, no offense…but that’s a pretty bad name.
Drew Carey was nice enough to open up his big mouth about “democracy in action” at the initial team install so he should be overjoyed when the fans vote in Seattle Sounders. In a previous life, Carey was a vocal supporter of bringing back his hometown NFL club the Cleveland Browns after they had left to become the Baltimore Ravens. Garber and the other poobahs might not be so thrilled with Sounders, but it is the passion of supporters like Carey who will make MLS a success. The coporate guys came up with previous MLS doozies like Clash, Real Salt Lake, MetroStars and the Kansas City Wiz (thankfully changed to the Wizards), so let the people make the call this time. If Sounders does not win the vote it will be a fix of monumental proportions and Hanauer, Roth and Garber will be burned in effegy and Carey will be so shamed by the mess that he’ll have to go back to being an LA Galaxy fan. If (when) Sounders is announced it may cost somebody some money to secure the moniker but the positive press and fan response will be, as they say, priceless.
‘What’s your soul worth
‘What’s your soul worth
‘What’s your soul worth Sounders fan?’
‘I don’t need one
‘Never had one
‘Came to see a marching band!’
How about, to appease the masses, they go with just Sounders FC…global AND local…can’t miss!
What is it with American sports that insist on giving their teams ridiculous non-plural nicknames? “Republic”? What in the world are you supposed to call one of them? “Alliance”? Utter pablum.
“Wiz” described a bodily function, not a football club. “Galaxy” is bad enough, “Fire” is ridiculous. Name the team Sounders and link with one of the few clubs that links back with the NASL. It’s stunning to me that there’s even a debate over this.
And yeah … I’m American.
I disagree that Fire is all that bad - it references a major historical event that shaped Chicago as a city. The same way Sounders (and Whitecaps or Timbers for that matter) have a particular local significance that really needs to be respected if there’s any desire to establish an entrenched soccer culture.
Mackenzie, I’m not against Fire because it’s an historical event - I’m against it because it’s singular. Too many American sports do that - it’s a basic English mistake.
If you were looking to name a Chicago team after something that shaped the city, you could as easily call them the Wind (though I would hate to give any so-called marketing genius any ideas).
That said, I have a healthy respect for tradition and Sounders should be the name of Seattle’s team.
The Seattle Sounders faced Pele, we can take on Graber WITH YOUR HELP.
OTE! This is about saving football from the MLS. For the soul of the sport. . .
Go to www.mlsinseattle.com
write-in “Seattle Sounders”
MLS commissioner, Don Gerber, needs to realize something: In order to know where you’re going, you need to know where you’ve been. I am not only a long-time fan of the Vancouver Whitecaps, going back to their NASL days, I am a huge supporter in the growth of soccer in North America. The NASL may have failed as a league, but the legacy and the impact on North American soccer was a success. MLS needs to realize this. Now, while I too, am not a big fan of singular collective noun team names, some of the non-plural names do sound good for North American soccer clubs. For example, Toronto FC should have resurrected the Toronto Blizzard name. That was a team with a history. The Tampa Bay Mutany, on the other hand, was a public-relations disaster. I can’t even connect the meaning of Mutany with Tampa. Had they used the old Rowdies name, there would have been far more sentiment and passion. Of all the old NASL teams that need to be revived, the one that is the MOST obvious is the New York Cosmos. That was a team that was either loved or hated by passionate U.S. soccer fans. Isn’t what sports is supposed to be about? Favourite team. Heated rivalry. Hated team(friendly that is). MLS is doing all the right things that the NASL had done wrong. However, they need to drop this “move forward” attitude. They chose a great American soccer market to join them in 2009. They should take advantage of having Seattle, by allowing the Sounders name to be used. A future Whitecaps-Sounders-Timbers I5 rivalry in MLS is very marketable and it would give the league something to market to the rest of the world. Write in Seattle Sounders. Next, New York Cosmos.
I’m not a native to Seattle, but live here now. While I think as an actual name for a team Sounders is awful, I’ve come to recognize to the value and tradition of the name and voted for it as often as I could (I only have so many “unique” email addresses to use to register my vote). MLS needs to sit back and thank the 14K folks who have purchased tickets and let them get their way lest the interest in the team goes the way of the Miami Fusion (anybody remember them?). I grew up in Tampa and loved watching the Rowdies and waiting for the moments that Rodney Marsh was sure to snap, and I proudly wore my Rowdies t-shirt with the “Kick in the Grass” slogan. I hated it when the fools in NY came up with the Mutiny. Had they connected Mutiny to Tampa’s history (pirates, Gasparilla, etc.) it could have worked, but the space alien livery was a joke. Think that didn’t have an effect on interest in the team and why they are no longer in the league? So, MLS braintrust, shut up, let the tradition live even if it does not match up with your global, Euro style research marketing, keep the Sounders name alive, and graciously thank a community for getting behind the team and the league.
What I don’t understand is this (and I would really appreciate it if there were anyone that could answer my question): Why are the Sounders going to be playing in Qwest Field next year? You would think that with the money the owners of this club have, that conjuring up plans for a SSS wouldn’t be too much work. Surely the city would go for it. Especially if the club was willing to pay 100% of the cost. Paul Allen, Microsoft billionaire, Drew Carey, and other very rich people are involved in this club. Money should be no object. This is the same club that was willing to pay Thierry Henry 225,000 per week if he would come play for them. There shouldn’t be any problems putting together $100-150 million for a new 25,000 seat capacity soccer-specific stadium.
Can anyone answer my question?
I think we did put together a phenomenal soccer stadium. The first time the stadium that is now Qwest went up to a taxpayer vote it failed. The second time was after the design was changed to accomodate FIFA and international football. The soccer fans put Qwest field over the top and the stadium received taxpayer funding. Qwest was built for soccer. The entire “throwball” field can be removed and replaced quite rapidly if the stadium management deems it cost-effective.
Second, it’s all about opportunity cost and sound fiscal policy. If the ownership group had to pony up for a new stadium then that would be money spent on a stadium and not on signing players, coaches and other activities. They’re thinking, “spend the money on a player to bring in the fans now and sell enough tickets to buy a stadium later.”
I think that this ownership group will pony up for a soccer-specific stadium if it makes financial sense. In other words, if we put 20K people in Qwest Field for 2 years than we break ground on Sounders Stadium in year 3 and we build a 40K person stadium.