By Jason Davis – WASHINGTON, DC (May 31, 2013) US Soccer Players – New York City FC, despite having a name and an ownership group, is a blank slate. A clean, untouched canvas ready to receive those things which help fans and neutrals alike pin down their image, their character, and their fit into the fabric of both New York and soccer. How the new club goes about establishing its new look will go a long way towards establishing its bonafides among those who will ultimately decide its popular success.
The word “branding” conjures distasteful images of marketing executives sitting around conference tables plotting out every detail of a team’s profile in a bid to maximize monetary return. The modern business of sports runs contrary to wistful notions of clubs as community organizations held in the public trust, forcing fans to swallow hard as tradition makes way for increasing profit. New York City FC’s unique circumstance as a new team only sets it apart in so far that there is no emotional ties to the past to spoil. That doesn’t mean the clubs new fans (of which there are undoubtedly some, even without a single player signed to play for the as-yet-homeless 20th MLS franchise) won’t have complaints when the club’s image is unveiled, it just means those complaints will rest only on a foundation of subjective aesthetics.
If the history of MLS any evidence, NYCFC might not even need to be worried about striking the right chord in their first attempt at branding the team. Built on the unfortunate garish style of the mid-90s, without a doubt the worst single era in the history of mankind for that sort of thing, MLS club logos and color schemes have changed en masse since. The Dallas Burn became FC Dallas, the San Jose Clash called up NASL history with a return to the Earthquakes, the MetroStars switched looks following their sale to a international energy drink company, and Kansas City’s MLS team deftly remade themselves in time for the opening of their state of the art stadium in a bid to reboot their image in that city. MLS brands, at least the original ones, were not sacrosanct.
On second thought, perhaps that fact ratchets up the pressure on the power that be with NYCFC to get it right the first time. For the most part, every MLS rebrand has been successful in some measure (or, at the very least, an improvement) and the era of completely overhauling brands has seemingly closed. If NYCFC is to succeed in a crowded sports market and be the bellwether team MLS hopes it to be, it will need fitting, attractive, marketable look from the outset.
Despite the lack of colors or logo, Major League Soccer and the owners of the new New York team declared their intent by choosing the Euro-leaning “FC” moniker over a more American approach of city-and-mascot. “FC” is the fashion of the day, even in a country and league that are unlikely to switch from “soccer”. The current thinking goes that a team unchristened with a mascot allows for an organic process that allows the fans to play a part in the naming of the team. Only time will tell if such a dynamic plays out in New York. It’s pandering, but it’s pandering of a proven sort.
Again, NYCFC has the benefit from starting from scratch. That’s not the case across the soccer world, where old clubs struggle to refresh their “brands” in a bid to stay competitive in the modern environment that requires simpler images more easily reproduced for merchandise and memorabilia. Just this month, two venerable English clubs revamped their crests (or “badges”, or “logos”, depending on your sensibilities). Everton’s new look, sans the club’s deeply held motto, went over like a lead balloon with a fan base convinced the club ignored their input. The uproar over the redesign prompted an apology and a promise on the part of the club to try again after next season. Only time constraints with uniforms for the 2013-14 season prevented Everton from scrapping the new design altogether.
Meanwhile, newly promoted Premier League club Crystal Palace altered the look of the name mark, reverted to a retro-style ball in lieu of the overly used Telstar type, and traded in the current iteration of their iconic eagle for a sleeker version, one that they believe “brings [the] club’s image into the 21st century.” It doesn’t hurt that a similar eagle was on an earlier version of their crest. Palace reached a conclusion on their new badge after soliciting fan votes on several possible choices last year. Unlike in Everton’s case, there seems to be little pushback to Crystal Palace’s change. In fact, much of the response has been positive, a likely byproduct of the letting the fans participate in choosing the final design.
Whether something as simple as an eagle depicted by different means can actually bring a club’s image into the 21st century is debatable. What’s not is that teams feel constant pressure to change, revitalize, and “refresh” their crests as the race to stay relevant beyond their traditional home bases becomes crucial to success and survival.
Different clubs, different circumstances, difference prevailing tastes, and yet each faced with the same delicate business of appealing to new fans while avoiding alienating old ones. Unlike most businesses, which modern soccer clubs most decidedly are and must be, passions runs deep. This ties to everything used to differentiate a club from its rivals from their rivals. Colors are markers of personal histories. Changing either or both is an offense to connections built over lifetimes. Fans take change seriously, as they should.
No matter the MLS history of rebranding to wash away the horrid taste of the 90s, or the modern success story of Sporting’s transformation, NYCFC must tread lightly as it considers an image that will set the tone for the team well into a distant future. There are no pre-existing fans to worry about or history to defer to, but there are correct tones they need to hit if the club is to overcome its deficit of authenticity to capture the hearts and minds of New York soccer fans.
Unfortunately, what exactly those right tones might be are a matter of mystery tied to the ever-shifting tastes of a fickle public. How the involvement of a baseball teams with one of the iconic logos in professional sports plays into this is a good question. It’s worth acknowledging that no one currently in the New York Yankees front office had anything to do with their logo. Manchester City changed their badge in 1997 to make it easier to trademark, so they don’t have the same uninterrupted history as the Yankees and their interlocking NY.
The most important part of NYCFC’s immediate success – in a city with enough distractions it won’t even deign to notice if the “brand” isn’t nearly perfect – is an unknown. Maybe for the very reason that it is so crucial and the public is so fickle.
Why risk ruining the announcement of the team with a backlash over a logo everyone hates when you can pretend, at least for awhile, that it’s not so momentous a decision? Subjective aesthetics, frightening to say the least.
Jason Davis is the founder of MatchFitUSA.com and the co-host of The Best Soccer Show. Contact him:matchfitusa@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter:http://twitter.com/davisjsn.
More From Jason Davis:
