Yo Puro!

Historicus wrote:Because football clubs that were created 100 or 50 or probably even 30 years ago no longer exist? The MLS was created in 1996, there were no existing teams to roll into it, new ones had to be made, there isn't promotion/relegation either, so in order for a new city to get a team in the MLS a new club has to be made.

Sure, I get that much, but I mean why do they need silly names at all? In this country our teams have equally silly names, but a lot of them are sufficiently old that we have the convenient excuse that people talked differently back then.

It's the branding, rather than the clubs themselves, that I'm questionning here. I have no problem with the MLS, in fact I'd love it if football really took off in America but some of those names crack me up.

Aside from Real Salt Lake, which doesn't make any sense and they should have called it Royal Salt Lake(though their partnership with Real Madrid makes it more tolerable), most of the names do have reasoning behind them.

Like, you didn't like DC United, well Washington DC is the capital of the United States. And Washington DC teams tend to have patriotic names(Washington Nationals baseball team, Washington Capitals hockey team). And its a common naming convention for football teams. Most of the other teams have names that have something to do with their city, or are just generic football club names(Toronto FC, FC Dallas).

Chivas USA is an exception, but that makes sense I think because of the large amount of Mexican immigrants in Southern California.