Topic on Apr 20, 2010 09:34 AM
“We chose a bold font for a bold and strong team,” said President Tom Fath. What Fath didn’t explain is why once again we are subjected to the proverbial black and white youth soccer ball from the 70’s on another logo.
While I like the shield and Maple Leaf rising from the back, I think most of you know what I think about soccer balls on logos in US and Canadian teams. Yes, I’ll start the rant over again.
Why do we feel the need to declare what sport we are representing? I’ve heard the excuse that the ball has to be there for marketing purposes because people won’t know what sport it is. Really? Do people that view the Chicago Cubs of Detroit Tigers logo think it might be a sign for a zoo? Or the St. Louis Blues are a music group or the Minnesota Wild are…well, really I’m not sure what you’d think they are by looking at that logo. The point is, we’re not in the 70’s any longer. We now have hundreds of thousands of youth playing the game and colleges and high schools and MLS and Division II pro and on and on and on. Really… it’s 2010 and we no longer need to put soccer balls on our logos.
I know some of you are going to come back and say some big teams have soccer balls on their logos. While that is true, most are done in a unique and classy way. Barcelona uses a ball in their logo, but it’s small, non-obtrusive and its a cool and old fashioned looking ball.
Oh, by the way, there is one thing worse than the black and white soccer ball in the logo. It’s the flying soccer ball in the logo.