Nyc Elements In Other Nyc Sports Home Uniforms

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
Yankees: None
Giants: None
Jets: None
Nets: None
St. John's: None
Rangers: None, other than occasional stature of liberty on practice or third jerseys
Mets: NYC colors, skyline in logo
Knicks: NYC Colors
Islanders: TBD, but I'm guessing at least a Brooklyn bridge motif next year


NYCFC: logo colors, subway token theme in logo, subway styled "inaugural season" logo on authentic jersey

It seems like NYCFC is being held to a higher standard, which is tough for a brand new organization.

Some will surely argue that the Yankees and Giants uniforms are themselves iconic NYC symbols and I agree: but that only came with time.

Finally, some advice for this who really don't like this jersey: don't buy it. No email campaign or stadium chant can have the same impact as poor sales.

Nothing will get the jersey changed faster than shitty sales, especially if bolder away or third shirts sell well.

Vote with your wallet! That's the real (and possibly only) power we have as fans.
 

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Yankees: None
Giants: None
Jets: None
Nets: None
St. John's: None
Rangers: None, other than occasional stature of liberty on practice or third jerseys
Mets: NYC colors, skyline in logo
Knicks: NYC Colors
Islanders: TBD, but I'm guessing at least a Brooklyn bridge motif next year

I wanted to exit from this debate, and I'm actually in agreement with most of what you wrote below the list, but your list starts with a significant inaccuracy.

Yankees: NY interlocking logo on the (1) cap and (2) chest. Both are bigger than the NYCFC badge and not overshadowed by the name of an airline. In fact, they are the only textual or graphic elements on the uniform front.

In addition, as I reviewed your list I noticed that almost all of the team names above have a specific NY or local connection:

Yankees: residents of the Northeast and the word origin is probably Dutch although that's not completely certain.
Giants: named after the pre-existing NY baseball Giants. To be fair, Giants had no inherent NY connection when the baseball team took it, but by the time the football team came along it was an established NY reference.
Jets: originally named the Titans, as a reference to the Giants. Switched to the Jets as a nod to their then Queens home next to LaGuardia. Also played off the Mets.
Nets. Building on the Mets, Jets theme. (There was also a short-lived Tennis league whose NY team was the Sets)
Rangers: I got nothing. I'll give you that one. I know the origin but it's not really NY based.
Mets: Metropolitans. Kind of vague. A push at best.
Knicks. Most explicit nod ever to NY history.
Islanders: Obvious geographic reference.

Meanwhile our new beloved soccer team has the nickname: Football Club. Couldn't be more generic. And it's not even proper American English which would be Soccer Club, or more likely Soccer Team. Football Club is British English. Completely proper, but not exactly local to NY or even our continent. I get the nod to the sport's tradition, and the other nod to that team from the city that gave us Joy Division.

I do like the Inaugural Season logo, although as someone just posted on another thread, they could maybe start using NYC references beyond the transit system, but it works great on the jersey. I looked at the shirt in the store:
http://shop.nycfc.com/NYCFC-Catalog/Men's/NYCFC-Inaugural-Season-Tee/p/NF150210010
It's nice but the version on the jersey has more pop and definition. The t-shirt version is more subdued. Not bad, and a matter of personal taste, but I like the jersey version better.
NF150210010_primary_lightblue
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
You make many valid points -- but none of those things are incorporated into their home jerseys and I thought that was the major complaint.

And regarding the names, I'm sure if there was an internet in 1925 there would have been football fans on a forum complaining that by taking the name of the baseball team, the New York Football Giants were shamelessly overemphasizing branding! And don't even start me on the "inferiority complex from the very beginning" of the AFL team being called the Titans...

I especially agree with your comments on the "NYCFC" name -- but the wannabe European team names were an unfortunate trend from the get-go. Sporting KC and Real Salt Lake are particularly bad wannabe names, as they're not even cribbed from the English language. DC United is the only one of those names that works for me.

But we can all agree that however bad the FC names are, none are even close to as bad as NY Red Bulls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
You make many valid points -- but none of those things are incorporated into their home jerseys and I thought that was the major complaint.

And regarding the names, I'm sure if there was an internet in 1925 there would have been football fans on a forum complaining that by taking the name of the baseball team, the New York Football Giants were shamelessly overemphasizing branding! And don't even start me on the "inferiority complex from the very beginning" of the AFL team being called the Titans...

I especially agree with your comments on the "NYCFC" name -- but the wannabe European team names were an unfortunate trend from the get-go. Sporting KC and Real Salt Lake are particularly bad wannabe names, as they're not even cribbed from the English language. DC United is the only one of those names that works for me.

But we can all agree that however bad the FC names are, none are even close to as bad as NY Red Bulls.
Near total agreement. I just brought up the names cause it struck me as I went over your list. I suppose you could argue that a bit more NY-ishness in the name would have left fans giving more leeway with the kit but that's probably a stretch
Total agreement on Real Salt Lake, Sporting KC and Red Bulls.
 

grandsolo

Registered
Apr 26, 2014
264
136
43
49
I wanted to exit from this debate, and I'm actually in agreement with most of what you wrote below the list, but your list starts with a significant inaccuracy.

Yankees: NY interlocking logo on the (1) cap and (2) chest. Both are bigger than the NYCFC badge and not overshadowed by the name of an airline. In fact, they are the only textual or graphic elements on the uniform front.

In addition, as I reviewed your list I noticed that almost all of the team names above have a specific NY or local connection:

Yankees: residents of the Northeast and the word origin is probably Dutch although that's not completely certain.
Giants: named after the pre-existing NY baseball Giants. To be fair, Giants had no inherent NY connection when the baseball team took it, but by the time the football team came along it was an established NY reference.
Jets: originally named the Titans, as a reference to the Giants. Switched to the Jets as a nod to their then Queens home next to LaGuardia. Also played off the Mets.
Nets. Building on the Mets, Jets theme. (There was also a short-lived Tennis league whose NY team was the Sets)
Rangers: I got nothing. I'll give you that one. I know the origin but it's not really NY based.
Mets: Metropolitans. Kind of vague. A push at best.
Knicks. Most explicit nod ever to NY history.
Islanders: Obvious geographic reference.

Meanwhile our new beloved soccer team has the nickname: Football Club. Couldn't be more generic. And it's not even proper American English which would be Soccer Club, or more likely Soccer Team. Football Club is British English. Completely proper, but not exactly local to NY or even our continent. I get the nod to the sport's tradition, and the other nod to that team from the city that gave us Joy Division.

I do like the Inaugural Season logo, although as someone just posted on another thread, they could maybe start using NYC references beyond the transit system, but it works great on the jersey. I looked at the shirt in the store:
http://shop.nycfc.com/NYCFC-Catalog/Men's/NYCFC-Inaugural-Season-Tee/p/NF150210010
It's nice but the version on the jersey has more pop and definition. The t-shirt version is more subdued. Not bad, and a matter of personal taste, but I like the jersey version better.
NF150210010_primary_lightblue
Soccer is an English word coined by an Englishman. Nothing Amercian English about it.
 

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Soccer is an English word coined by an Englishman. Nothing Amercian English about it.

I know the history. It was Oxford slang: soccer, ruggers, etc.

American English means current usage, not derivation. If American English were limited to words that Americans invented, it would represent a vanishingly small percentage of the words Americans use every day.
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
I just learned something interesting -- the earliest usage of "soccer" predates the earliest usage of the standalone "football" by 18 years.

football-and-soccer.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MagnusPax

Ahab_Flanders

Registered
Aug 17, 2014
1,193
2,042
203
33
I just posted a long post about this in another kit, but for me unique NYCFC elements does not mean an image of the Statue of Liberty or any other tacky representation of the city. It simply means using the colors that are supposed to represent this team. Orange is the one color we have that represents no other team in the CFG portfolio. So use it. I'm not saying an orange kit, but one or two orange details on the kit we got would have shown that the designers spent more than 30 seconds thinking about the kit and that it is unquestionably an NYCFC kit, not a generic that you could slap any CFG badge onto.
 

MagnusPax

Registered
May 3, 2014
3,872
3,788
303
You make many valid points -- but none of those things are incorporated into their home jerseys and I thought that was the major complaint.

And regarding the names, I'm sure if there was an internet in 1925 there would have been football fans on a forum complaining that by taking the name of the baseball team, the New York Football Giants were shamelessly overemphasizing branding! And don't even start me on the "inferiority complex from the very beginning" of the AFL team being called the Titans...

I especially agree with your comments on the "NYCFC" name -- but the wannabe European team names were an unfortunate trend from the get-go. Sporting KC and Real Salt Lake are particularly bad wannabe names, as they're not even cribbed from the English language. DC United is the only one of those names that works for me.

But we can all agree that however bad the FC names are, none are even close to as bad as NY Red Bulls.
You do realize that Real Salt Lake was created 10 years ago, and Sporting KC less than 3? So no, they weren't an unfortunate trend from the get-go. They are fairly recent phenomenon. Now names like the Clash or Wiz were from the get-go.

I hope NYRB go back to MetroStars if RB pulls out.
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
You do realize that Real Salt Lake was created 10 years ago, and Sporting KC less than 3? So no, they weren't an unfortunate trend from the get-go. They are fairly recent phenomenon. Now names like the Clash or Wiz were from the get-go.

I hope NYRB go back to MetroStars if RB pulls out.

DC United was an inaugural team. The Miami franchise adopted the "F.C." name in 2000, so yes, there were British-inspired names from season #1.
 

MagnusPax

Registered
May 3, 2014
3,872
3,788
303
DC United was an inaugural team. The Miami franchise adopted the "F.C." name in 2000, so yes, there were British-inspired names from season #1.
You are the one that said RSL and SKC were bad names from the get-go of MLS.
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
" the wannabe European team names were an unfortunate trend from the get-go. Sporting KC and Real Salt Lake are particularly bad wannabe names, as they're not even cribbed from the English language."

Two distinct thoughts, indicated by their separation with a period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CP_Scouse

Paul

NYC ain't nothin' to fuck with!
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 1, 2014
1,243
2,115
253
NYC
There are numerous clubs in MLS that are "football clubs", right? Seattle I think is officially "Seattle Sounders FC" and there are others I believe. Any MLS experts want to help me here?
 

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
FC Dallas , Seattle Sounders FC and Toronto FC.
 

Falastur

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 20, 2014
3,389
4,580
353
35
Herts, UK
I just learned something interesting -- the earliest usage of "soccer" predates the earliest usage of the standalone "football" by 18 years.

football-and-soccer.jpg

Not exactly. Maybe for what we know as the modern football, though the only reason for that would be that in the mid-1800s a number of English public schools had their own codes for the game, meaning that when you referred to football you had to refer to the version you were talking about - "Eton Football, Harrow Football, etc". The game of Rugby (not so known in the US, but I'm sure you've at least heard of it) is called Rugby because the public school in the town of Rugby was the first to object to the rule of not using hands and changed their rules to allow carrying the ball.

It is true that the term soccer originated in the UK and was at one point far more widely used than "football", but that has long since ceased to be the case.

Going back further, the term "football" has been used since the Middle Ages. If you've ever read Shakespeare's play 'King Lear', there's one scene where one character abuses another by calling him a "base [i.e. scum] football player".
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski

FredMertz

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jun 2, 2014
3,328
7,254
353
40
Thanks -- I love learning random stuff!
 

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Building on Falastur's history lesson, which is completely accurate to my knowledge:
When those English schools finished formalizing the rules of soccer they formed the "Football Association." The schools that preferred Rugby style play refused to join and created The "Rugby Union." Generally, one sport was called Association Football and the other Rugby Football.
It was in the 1880's that Oxford "er" slang, possibly derived from the Rugby school, started the term "socker," later changed to soccer, as a shorthand for Association Football.
 

Falastur

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Mar 20, 2014
3,389
4,580
353
35
Herts, UK
Building on Falastur's history lesson, which is completely accurate to my knowledge:
When those English schools finished formalizing the rules of soccer they formed the "Football Association." The schools that preferred Rugby style play refused to join and created The "Rugby Union." Generally, one sport was called Association Football and the other Rugby Football.
It was in the 1880's that Oxford "er" slang, possibly derived from the Rugby school, started the term "socker," later changed to soccer, as a shorthand for Association Football.

Yep, although the balance of power had swung from the public schools to the brand new clubs (essentially turning the sport from an upper-class game to a working-class one) by the time that the FA was founded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mgarbowski

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
And I think the whole process, from the start of rules regularization , to forming the Association, to the first usage of the term "soccer," took about 40 years, give or take.
 

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
16,182
46,338
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
And one more thought: US football, as well as Canadian football, Australian Rules football, etc, all trace their history, via Rugby, to the pre-1840s, English sport with no official rules that was called "football." And that's why those modern variants worldwide are all called football. Not because some idiot looked at a game with minimal kicking and lots of ball carrying and handling and said "Let's call it football."

AND, Rugby itself eventually developed two variants, Rugby Union and Rugby League, one of which is more like US football, and the other a bit more fluid like soccer.