So, I went to a soccer game

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by rnoldh

Your guess would be right. Since i had never been to a game and I didn't understand the finer points, I probably missed a lot. If the Dynamos play for the championship this year, I'll be there.

Fair enough. I don't watch enough of any of the Olympic sports to really appreciate the subtleties, but I've sure been enjoying it all.

 

[migo]

OP: Attend a game when LA Galaxy (Beckham = more posers attend, but still, it's a crowd) visit and sit in the stands with the rest of the fans. That's the only way you'll really appreciate it. Can't speak much for Houston, but DC United games are hella fun (This from someone who's watched matches in England with 30,000 in attendance)

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Originally Posted by migo

OP: Attend a game when LA Galaxy (Beckham = more posers attend, but still, it's a crowd) visit and sit in the stands with the rest of the fans. That's the only way you'll really appreciate it. Can't speak much for Houston, but DC United games are hella fun (This from someone who's watched matches in England with 30,000 in attendance)
I would not be surprised if we didn't get 20-30k for the first season in Seattle, is that strange for the US? I believe that there are around 17k season tickets sold already, and the first game isn't even until next year. Plus, we just signed Kasey Keller, which is awesome!

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Actually, I didn't miss your point. I guessed what it was straight away.

1. Chivas USA was founded by a Mexican to appeal to Mexican fans. Hence, it was intended to be as ex-pat as any other faux named South American taeam. I concede it's lamely named, but then I find a South American Everton, Wolves or Rangers to be as stupidly named.
wrong. first of all, vergara is not an ex-pat, he lives in guadalajara. second, the faux named teams in south america were generally founded by british ex-pats, for british ex-pats to play. there was no professional futbol at the time that most of those teams were founded. no one was trying to cash in on name recognition. the names sound silly to me as well, but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

2. Dynamo wasn't chosen to appeal to Eastern Europeans or even because of any association with it. People liked the name. Remember, it was chosen by fans. They likely disregarded any Kiev or Moscow precedent and thought of it as similar to "Fusion" or "Wild."
the fans may have chosen the name, but i'm sure they were only given a handful of names to choose from, and it's too much coincidence that there is a 'real' a 'united' and a 'dynamo' for you to say it has no connection with the euro teams. (though i don't doubt that the fans are unaware of this.)

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Huh?

First, you say the league should adopt American naming conventions -- Kansas City Wizards, e.g. Second, you say that the league shouldn't adopt American naming conventions of "city name" followed by "juvenile nickname" -- Kansas City Wizards, e.g.

Which is it?
i didn't say american naming conventions, i said american names. though i don't like 'chicago fire', at the very least they are being true to themselves and not calling themselves 'united'.

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

I agree that's a nice convention. But hardly fathomable to Americans. "What, we're supposed to rally around the 'FC'?"
fans of a.c. milan don't rally around a.c. they rally around milan. (no one in italy calls them a.c. milan.) they are milanese, after all. why is this unfathomable?

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

As you point out below, you believe immigrants aren't going to follow MLS, which means they need to try to reach out to Americans. Americans like the "city + nickname" convention. Every league does it, with the exception of a couple MLS clubs.
that's fine. though i would say that americans like the city + nickname convention because it's the only thing they know and are used to it. i wouldn't say they have a built-in aversion to rooting for a club name.

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

First, that's pretty reductionist. Plenty of immigrants follow their adopted country's leagues, including in the US.
in other countries, yes. here, i don't know any.

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Second, yes, I think "Chivas Los Angeles" is better than "Chivas USA." But, that's falling into the trap of formalizing the informal Chivas nickname, no?
i would never use chivas anything, but you forced me to choose. here's the thing; by naming the team chivas you alienate all the hispanics in l.a. who are not mexican, and that's a big number of people. you also alienate all the mexicans who are not chivas fans (they are a team you either love or hate.) so that leaves you with who? a bunch of hardcore guadalajara fans who see it as the marketing ploy it is, who love guadalajara with all their hearts and could not care less about chivas usa or mls.

imagine the owners of arsenal looking to cash in on all the english immigrants in l.a. (i call them immigrants, not ex-pats, because that's what they are. they aren't going home anytime soon.) so they buy an mls franchise and name it "gunners usa." do you think the stadium is suddenly going to fill up with englishmen? they don't all root for arsenal, and the ones who do would find the whole thing ridiculous anyway.

you may think from the tone in my posts that i'm against mls but i'm not. i would like the sport to grow here, but i think they are going about it in a tasteless way. they are using the typical corporate american strategy of marketing everything towards children and making everything connected with the sport childish.

 

[mr. magoo]

Matadorpoeta, I see where you're coming from, I really do.

You see MLS as a somewhat rudderless ship when it comes to marketing, naming and even founding teams. They are a league that simultaneously wants to appeal to immigrants who ignore US soccer because its American and American sports fans who ignore soccer because its soccer. In this respect, you presumably think that the teams should stake out a different path and try to breed grassroots support for Americans who actually like the sport instead of through marketing, especially cynical marketing. And if that's your view, then I agree completely.

But look at it from MLS's viewpoint. There's no recipe book on how to create a league in the modern age, especially in a spectator sport without a successful history in this country/culture. The US literally has millions of people who will spend big money following teams from abroad, some of who, presumably, wouldn't mind a local team to follow. They have literally millions of native-born Americans who enjoy all types of sports but have no experience with soccer. In trying to keep the league alive and, more importantly, grow the sport, MLS needs to try to make serious in-roads into one of or both of these groups.

It's easy to say "why do it -- ex-pats won't like American soccer and Americans won't like soccer?" but I think that's pretty un-challenging thinking. The founders of MLS are billionaires who made their money off foresight. Maybe it'll work here, and maybe it won't. But just to say "it's too hard" I think is a blinkered.

Now on to your individual points...

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

wrong. first of all, vergara is not an ex-pat, he lives in guadalajara.

I know, which is why I said...

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Why is it any worse with Chivas USA, which is owned ("founded" if you prefer) by a Mexican, hoping to find support in the Mexican community in the US?

second, the faux named teams in south america were generally founded by british ex-pats, for british ex-pats to play. there was no professional futbol at the time that most of those teams were founded. no one was trying to cash in on name recognition. the names sound silly to me as well, but it is what it is.

First, Chivas USA was founded to be a Mexican-American club, with Mexican and Mexican-American players, playing a Latin style, appealing to Mexican-American fans. Frankly, that doesn't seem too cynical to me. The fact that the team was horrendous and couldn't compete with Mexican clubs for quality players meant they had to abandon the scheme. Love it or hate it, that was the original plan. The fact its now populated with gringo players is its sad reality.

Second, I can't say I know that much about the early foundings of Latin American clubs named after European teams, but I kind of doubt the only intent was to appeal to the large Euro ex-pat populations to play only. I think it was just as cynically marketed to them by taking names from ye olde countrie.

And if so, then that sounds pretty much like Chivas USA to me. You may find Vergera's empire to be a poor substitute for plucky and poor Catalans founding a neighborhood club, but that's how teams get created these days no matter where they are.

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

i didn't say american naming conventions...

Actually, you did. You said you disliked the style of "city name" + "nickname." Specifically...

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

this is the american league, and the names should reflect that. at the same time, if they are going to copy the rest of the world, they should copy the custom of naming the team as an organization, not just "city name" followed by "juvenile nickname".

So the other day, they should copy the "organization" style -- I presume Toronto F.C. or D.C. United -- and not city + nickname -- Chicago Fire. Now you're saying that city name + nickname isn't so bad. To wit...

i said american names. though i don't like 'chicago fire', at the very least they are being true to themselves and not calling themselves 'united'.

See why you're hard to follow? (Btw, "United" is another way of saying "club", typically when more than one club was brought together. It's not a nickname like "Chivas" but more like "F.C.")

fans of a.c. milan don't rally around a.c. they rally around milan. (no one in italy calls them a.c. milan.) they are milanese, after all. why is this unfathomable?

I don't think it is unfathomable, but so what? Dallas Cowboys fans rally around Dallas and rally around Cowboys. Nothing wrong with doing things a little different here. This style of naming a team has as much tradition as European styles.

that's fine. though i would say that americans like the city + nickname convention because it's the only thing they know and are used to it. i wouldn't say they have a built-in aversion to rooting for a club name.

I don't think American have a built in aversion to it, they just don't do it. It's like saying Europeans or South Americans would have a built in aversion to a nickname. They'd think it's weird, but they wouldn't be disgusted.

in other countries, yes. here, i don't know any.

You're right there aren't many, but as I said above, that's the challenge. And to just say "ah, there's millions of immigrants in America, but they'll never follow MLS" is wrong in both senses of the word.

i would never use chivas anything, but you forced me to choose. here's the thing; by naming the team chivas you alienate all the hispanics in l.a. who are not mexican, and that's a big number of people. you also alienate all the mexicans who are not chivas fans (they are a team you either love or hate.) so that leaves you with who? a bunch of hardcore guadalajara fans who see it as the marketing ploy it is, who love guadalajara with all their hearts and could not care less about chivas usa or mls.

I agree that Vergera alienated all non-Mexican Hispanics and all Mexicans who dislike Chivas. But then again, it was his team and thought he could leverage the existing brand name. It wasn't the move I'd make, but again, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THAT TEAM? Until you ante up an answer, you're just a critic.

imagine the owners of arsenal looking to cash in on all the english immigrants in l.a. (i call them immigrants, not ex-pats, because that's what they are. they aren't going home anytime soon.) so they buy an mls franchise and name it "gunners usa." do you think the stadium is suddenly going to fill up with englishmen?

No, I don't. But as I said above, that was the challenge. And to bring this full circle, this is a convention that's been used for years -- Rangers, Arsenal de Sarandi, Everton, etc.

 

[rnoldh]

The Dynamos play Chivas USA tonight. If the rain stops completely I might go.

To those of you that know soccer. Will the game have a different vibe than the game I went to against the Salt Lake City team?

Chivas is in the same division and league as the Dynamos, correct?

I keep hearing that the most fun for a soccer neophyte like me would be going to a game against a Mexican national team or something similar.

 

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by rnoldh

The Dynamos play Chivas USA tonight. If the rain stops completely I might go.

To those of you that know soccer. Will the game have a different vibe than the game I went to against the Salt Lake City team?

Chivas is in the same division and league as the Dynamos, correct?

I keep hearing that the most fun for a soccer neophyte like me would be going to a game against a Mexican national team or something similar.

The Dyanamo wouldn't play the Mexican National Team.

Quick tutorial -- soccer, like other professional sports, is organized into professional teams (i.e., clubs) into national leagues -- e.g., MLS = US, FMF = Mexico, Serie A = Italy, etc. (Within most countries there are minor and major leagues and the teams can move up or down a division, depending on how they do, but that's not the case in the US.) Houston is a professional team.

Professional teams can hire players from anywhere, depending on the rules of their league. So the Dynamo have players from Canada (Dewayne DeRosario, Pat Onstad) but are mostly American. Other teams are fairly international, such that they may have few or no players from the home country on the squad.

In addition, each nation has a "national team" that is made up of, supposedly, the best players from that country. The players can play professionally anywhere, but must be citizens of the country for which they play. Thus, Dewayne DeRosario plays professionally in Houston, but also plays for the Canada National Team. Similarly, Mexico has a player on the Chicago Fire (Temoc Blanco) who plays for Mexico.

Professional teams play professional teams and national teams play national teams.

Thus, tonight, Houston is playing Chivas USA (a team Matadorpoeta and I've been bickering about). Two professional teams.

Also tonight, Mexico is playing Honduras in Mexico City, Canada plays Jamaica, and the US plays Guatemala. Thus, tonight's best players will be with their national teams.

I think what someone is suggesting is that you should go watch the Dynamo when they play another professional team from Mexico. This isn't something done on a routine basis since they play in different leagues, but occasionally there are tournaments that have teams from different nations.

I believe Houston will play in another starting this fall. Go see that. It should be more fun than just seeing two MLS teams. Plus, you get the passionate foreign fans and some national pride on the line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-09...ampions_League

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by rnoldh

The Dynamos play Chivas USA tonight. If the rain stops completely I might go.

To those of you that know soccer. Will the game have a different vibe than the game I went to against the Salt Lake City team?

Chivas is in the same division and league as the Dynamos, correct?

I keep hearing that the most fun for a soccer neophyte like me would be going to a game against a Mexican national team or something similar.

Seeing anyone play Chivas would be more fun than 2 MLS teams playing. Easily.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

wrong. first of all, vergara is not an ex-pat, he lives in guadalajara. second, the faux named teams in south america were generally founded by british ex-pats, for british ex-pats to play. there was no professional futbol at the time that most of those teams were founded. no one was trying to cash in on name recognition. the names sound silly to me as well, but it is what it is.


the fans may have chosen the name, but i'm sure they were only given a handful of names to choose from, and it's too much coincidence that there is a 'real' a 'united' and a 'dynamo' for you to say it has no connection with the euro teams. (though i don't doubt that the fans are unaware of this.)


i didn't say american naming conventions, i said american names. though i don't like 'chicago fire', at the very least they are being true to themselves and not calling themselves 'united'.


fans of a.c. milan don't rally around a.c. they rally around milan. (no one in italy calls them a.c. milan.) they are milanese, after all. why is this unfathomable?

that's fine. though i would say that americans like the city + nickname convention because it's the only thing they know and are used to it. i wouldn't say they have a built-in aversion to rooting for a club name.


in other countries, yes. here, i don't know any.

i would never use chivas anything, but you forced me to choose. here's the thing; by naming the team chivas you alienate all the hispanics in l.a. who are not mexican, and that's a big number of people. you also alienate all the mexicans who are not chivas fans (they are a team you either love or hate.) so that leaves you with who? a bunch of hardcore guadalajara fans who see it as the marketing ploy it is, who love guadalajara with all their hearts and could not care less about chivas usa or mls.

imagine the owners of arsenal looking to cash in on all the english immigrants in l.a. (i call them immigrants, not ex-pats, because that's what they are. they aren't going home anytime soon.) so they buy an mls franchise and name it "gunners usa." do you think the stadium is suddenly going to fill up with englishmen? they don't all root for arsenal, and the ones who do would find the whole thing ridiculous anyway.

you may think from the tone in my posts that i'm against mls but i'm not. i would like the sport to grow here, but i think they are going about it in a tasteless way. they are using the typical corporate american strategy of marketing everything towards children and making everything connected with the sport childish.

too much for me to respond to since i've had a few beers and am awaiting some action, but i'll get back to you tomorrow. peace out.

p.s. mexico played like garbage tonight but still won. they dominated the entire match but panicked when honduras scored the first goal. i don't like eriksson so far.