Top Stories

MLS Ticker: Minnesota United, Sounders kits, Fire, and more

DonGarberBillMcGuireMinnesota1 (USATodaySports)

While several friendlies will be played later on Wednesday, here are the storylines that are making rounds in MLS.

Minnesota United could reportedly enter MLS as soon as 2017, but may have to do so under a different name. According to Sports Illustrated, the club may be forced to moved on without the “United” name following the introduction of fellow expansion side Atlanta United. (REPORT)

The Seattle Sounders have revealed their new primary and secondary kits for the 2016 MLS season, via the club’s new mobile app. (REPORT)

The Chicago Fire are reportedly targeting Dutch attacker Michael de Leeuw, after recently signing centerback and former FC Groningen teammate Johan Kappelhof. (REPORT)

Orlando City SC defeated the New York Red Bulls, 3-2, in Wednesday’s friendly. Kak√°, Adrian Winter and Pedro Ribeiro each scored for Orlando, while Bradley Wright-Phillips and Kemar Lawrence tallied for the Red Bulls. (REPORT)

D.C. United has extended its affiliation with USL side Richmond Kickers through the 2017 season. (REPORT)

What do you think of the naming rights issue? Is de Leeuw the right target for the Fire? What do you think of Seattle’s new kits?

Share your thoughts below.

Comments

  1. Time to think outside of the ‘traditional’ box. Come up with something original Minnesota & Atalanta!!

    Stand united against United!!!

    Reply
  2. Minnesota is the only team that the United name makes sense given their history. If they change their name I hope they are still able to keep the crest. One of the better crests in the country.

    Reply
      • yeah, if we’re going to follow the british tradition of naming teams (which i don’t really have a problem with), then we shouldn’t have a problem with multiple teams called united. might as well have only one club with “fc” in the name.

      • Yes…but only in Minnesota’s case does it make sense. Minneapolis/ St. Paul “United”. Atlanta makes no sense unless you look at it under a scope of being owned by an NFL owner with no background in the sport playing off the popularity of the United name in other countries, who held focus groups to determine which name tested best with them. In those cases – the focus groups probable lack of knowledge of soccer led to them choosing the name with the most name familiarity (Man United), much like someone voting for a political candidate because the name sounds familiar. It’s OK for US to have our own soccer culture, we don’t always have to piggyback off of others.

    • The problem with MLS saying Minnesota can’t use “United” is that some clubs like Minnesota are truly a union of previously existing and influential clubs. That is why they have chosen “United”. Versus DC United was pulled out of thin air in reverence to English clubs. The latter is just marketing/branding whereas the former reflects the history of the soccer club

      Reply
      • the story is that dc’s team was called united to reference the representation of not only dc, but maryland and virginia as well. maybe a little contrived, but no more than minnesota, who never actually combined teams–one replaced another, like seattle.

Leave a Comment