Are We Building A Team Or Selling A Brand?

[Midas Mulligan]

They've been covered in length already on twitter—by many, including me. It is an element that I find fault with on many levels from both sides of the argument.


That certainly would be disheartening. I do not believe that is the case, thankfully. That said, take it from one of the many long-suffering blues, that reality will not stop rival supporters from attempting arguments otherwise. Just ignore them (that makes them more angry than anything you can say).

It's laughable that people presume we'd be good enough to be a feeder club to a top 10 in the world club. It's even more laughable, yet also true, that I would be really pissed off by it.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

That is a fair point, though, I feel it is more correct with America than most other countries. I say that because after having spent quite a lot of time in the US, England, and Spain I can confidently say that Spanish and English supporters see performance outcomes and brand (or identity, if you prefer less business-like terms) to be two separate elements to a club's makeup, while it has been my experience that American link them closely, as you have said. That's not to say that is a more or less fair evaluation of the relative success of an organisation but it does mean operating a football/soccer team in the US presents different challenges—namely a club's win-draw-loss record seems (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) slightly more important overall to American supporters than the organisation being civilly inclusive and responsive.

I may be talking out of my hat, though.

Ah, yeah I was thinking of brand and identity differently.

I think that's probably true for a number of reasons. The first is that America hasn't really had a supporter's culture in any of its sports. There are fans, but the notion of fans having a formal group, a formal seating section, etc. isn't there in any other sport here. Most American fans talk about their connection to the team through family, meaning their literally family (i.e. I went with my dad to the stadium) whereas I get the sense that in England that family is broad enough to include the SG.

Second, I think the fact that in the US you only have one team per city has a lot to do with it. Whereas in England, the different breakdowns within the city often reflect not just geographical but political, religious, economic or other differences. There's no rivalry in the US with the connotations of Real Madrid v. Barcelona. Most of our rivalries break down into "dominant team v. underdog."

Finally, I think Americans really like winners. Particularly with many cities boasting multiple sports teams, if a team is a loser they can quickly fall into obscurity hurting the bottom line and their prospects of attracting future players. Without that same social aspect, winning is really all that matters in the professional ranks (This is part of the reason promotion/relegation would have a really hard time in America).

 

[SebastianBlue]

It's laughable that people presume we'd be good enough to be a feeder club to a top 10 in the world club. It's even more laughable, yet also true, that I would be really pissed off by it.

I believe anyone who takes that view would be under the impression that it is more future intent than present reality (which to them would make no difference). Either way, I do not think it is true and wouldn't bother arguing against such ridiculous notions. But they'll come, no doubt.

Ah, yeah I was thinking of brand and identity differently.

I think that's probably true for a number of reasons. The first is that America hasn't really had a supporter's culture in any of its sports. There are fans, but the notion of fans having a formal group, a formal seating section, etc. isn't there in any other sport here. Most American fans talk about their connection to the team through family, meaning their literally family (i.e. I went with my dad to the stadium) whereas I get the sense that in England that family is broad enough to include the SG.

Second, I think the fact that in the US you only have one team per city has a lot to do with it. Whereas in England, the different breakdowns within the city often reflect not just geographical but political, religious, economic or other differences. There's no rivalry in the US with the connotations of Real Madrid v. Barcelona. Most of our rivalries break down into "dominant team v. underdog."

Finally, I think Americans really like winners. Particularly with many cities boasting multiple sports teams, if a team is a loser they can quickly fall into obscurity hurting the bottom line and their prospects of attracting future players. Without that same social aspect, winning is really all that matters in the professional ranks (This is part of the reason promotion/relegation would have a really hard time in America).

All of your points definitely align with my thoughts regarding the particular American sports culture (which is not far off Australian, by the way). I meant to qualify my earlier statement, though, by saying that I did not intend to diminish the drive toward on the pitch success that the Spanish and English regularly demand. I think they care as much about winning as Americans but they just keep it separate from the identity, which they have a tendency of holding closer to their hearts for many of the reasons you've mentioned and others.

 

[Tom in Fairfield CT]

Ah, yeah I was thinking of brand and identity differently.

Finally, I think Americans really like winners.

These are the arguments that was getting Alexi Lalas laughed at from Ballack and van Nistelrooy. Lalas was going on about how American it was to fight until the end and never give up, blah blah. Plenty of other teams fight until the end, and I guarantee everyone around the world loves winning.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

These are the arguments that was getting Alexi Lalas laughed at from Ballack and van Nistelrooy. Lalas was going on about how American it was to fight until the end and never give up, blah blah. Plenty of other teams fight until the end, and I guarantee everyone around the world loves winning.

I think he meant how people are sort of "band-wagoners" here because our pro sports fan-team pairings aren't wholly and/or necessarily characterized by loyalty. What I'd guess is that most people don't grow up in the shadow of a major pro sports club, so they don't have a life-long allegiance.

The most similar comparison among Euro football club supporters and a breed of US fan are SEC football fans: die-hard support, heavy roster turnover, facilities races, geographic proximity, natural rivalries, longstanding traditions, life-long allegiances, heavy involvement. The list goes on and on, even to the pageantry and stadium involvement.

 

[MrE]

One of my concerns with the MLS is that if the model is successful, others might try to copy.
But what is success, is it financial, or sporting ?
If I wanted to support finances, I would follow the fortunes of a bank or finance company.
Finances help make a team, but it is not what the sport is about (any sport). Sport is about achievement and aspiration.
Fandom is about hopes and fears.

What have you to fear in a league that does not include relegation ?

The whole point of sport is achievement. The MLS does not promote achievement, being the exclusive body it is.
Slightly at odds with the inclusive ethos of this forum, and American Sports Fans in general.

Brand gives you money (life blood) but supporters make the investors invest, the advertisers advertise, and the team develop.

The stronger the support the stronger the brand regardless of finishing position.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

One of my concerns with the MLS is that if the model is successful, others might try to copy.
But what is success, is it financial, or sporting ?
If I wanted to support finances, I would follow the fortunes of a bank or finance company.
Finances help make a team, but it is not what the sport is about (any sport). Sport is about achievement and aspiration.
Fandom is about hopes and fears.

What have you to fear in a league that does not include relegation ?

The whole point of sport is achievement. The MLS does not promote achievement, being the exclusive body it is.
Slightly at odds with the inclusive ethos of this forum, and American Sports Fans in general.

Brand gives you money (life blood) but supporters make the investors invest, the advertisers advertise, and the team develop.

The stronger the support the stronger the brand regardless of finishing position.

Lots of good points there. I disagree that MLS doesn't promote achievement. It limits the impact of finances to achievement metrics, though. That much is sure.

It's a bit humorous to think of pro sports clubs as a business. They are tiny, low margin, high risk ventures that no one owns for the business side. A successful sports club is simply one that stays afloat and out of the red most years, while putting a good product on the field.

That much, I'd presume we 100% agree on.

I've said this before, but I think part of the intrigue of MLS is the fact that so many clubs have a real shot. If you can put together the right management and training team, you can smartly leverage the tiniest of margins into a run of on-field achievement.

 

[MrE]

Trying to keep this thread on track, I have posted my reply here

 

[FredMertz]

Ah, yeah I was thinking of brand and identity differently.


Second, I think the fact that in the US you only have one team per city has a lot to do with it. Whereas in England, the different breakdowns within the city often reflect not just geographical but political, religious, economic or other differences. There's no rivalry in the US with the connotations of Real Madrid v. Barcelona. Most of our rivalries break down into "dominant team v. underdog."

I actually can't think of a single great rivalry that is "dominant team v. underdog."

Are you an American sports fan? Auburn/Alabama? Red Sox/Yankees (every rivalry has ups and downs)? UNC/Duke? Michigan/Ohio State? Packers/Bears? Kentucky/Louisville?

Rivalries are born from frequency of play in meaningful games. Proximity only helps because it usually goes hand in hand with frequency, but you couldn't be much further apart than Lakers/Celtics.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I actually can't think of a single great rivalry that is "dominant team v. underdog."

Are you an American sports fan? Auburn/Alabama? Red Sox/Yankees (every rivalry has ups and downs)? UNC/Duke? Michigan/Ohio State? Packers/Bears? Kentucky/Louisville?

Rivalries are born from frequency of play in meaningful games. Proximity only helps because it usually goes hand in hand with frequency, but you couldn't be much further apart than Lakers/Celtics.

While those are indeed good rivalries (the ones I understand, anyway) I think his point regarding general American spectator interest still stands fairly well.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

I actually can't think of a single great rivalry that is "dominant team v. underdog."

Are you an American sports fan? Auburn/Alabama? Red Sox/Yankees (every rivalry has ups and downs)? UNC/Duke? Michigan/Ohio State? Packers/Bears? Kentucky/Louisville?

Rivalries are born from frequency of play in meaningful games. Proximity only helps because it usually goes hand in hand with frequency, but you couldn't be much further apart than Lakers/Celtics.

Yes, but you're referencing college sports rivalries which is a different animal altogether because ones allegiance usually is determined by more than just location. In the two professional sports rivalries you mention, I'd note that the Yankees are by far the more dominant team and that most of the Red Sox myth is predicated on them being the blue collar scrappers fighting against the wealthy powerful Yankees. The Red Sox myth is predicated on them being the underdog to the Yankees.