Blog: What's In A Name?

WHEN the Gold Coast’s northern rivals officially launched their club just over a week ago, everyone wanted to talk about one thing - the name.

North Queensland ‘Fury’ was met with a combination of annoyance, bewilderment and scorn. It left people asking why football clubs need a nickname at all, and hoping that the Gold Coast would avoid the same mistake by sticking to the simple ‘Gold Coast United’ moniker.

I may be siding myself with the minority, but I think the move by North Queensland is a positive one. It’s hard to defend the name itself, which sits alongside Roar, Victory, Glory and the defunct Spirit and Football Kingz in the list of Australia’s worst names. But having a nickname is an important part of creating a club atmosphere.

The main argument against nicknames seems to be that they are not ‘traditional’. They point to Manchester United FC, Chelsea FC and AC Milan as simple and elegant names which simply reflect the club’s region and status as a football team.

But conversely, some of the world’s greatest clubs, rich in tradition, do not follow this pattern. Internazionale Milano, Red Star Belgrade, Dinamo Zagreb, Olympiakos Piraeus and Bohemian FC all have some form of official nickname, and have done for in some cases hundreds of years. They also represent the countries of origin for many of Australia’s football community.

Even in England, which for many is (rightly or wrongly) the centre of international football, virtually all clubs do have a nickname. From the Red Devils to the Red Imps, the nicknames may not be official but regardless they are applied to media reports, club merchandise and fan groups.

Similarly in Australia virtually every sports club in every competition has some form of nickname. To suggest football is somehow ‘too good’ to bend to what is in essence Australian only serves to disenchant potential new fans and reinforce the stereotype that the sport is not part of this country’s culture. It is the opposite that needs to take place for the A-League to grow and so embracing a uniquely Australian name is surely a positive direction for the new clubs.

Another major benefit of a nickname is that it enhances the culture of the club over the culture of the city. Central Coast Mariners are one of the great success stories of the A-League and have forged a reputation as a strongly bound club that is entrenched in its community. The local flavour of their nickname has played some part in that.

On the other side of the coin, Sydney FC struggles to shake off the ‘bling’ tag that is as much aimed at the city of Sydney itself as the club that exists within it. Gold Coast United face a similar fate without a nickname. The distinction between club and city may seem minor, but it is vitally important in establishing a real sense of supporting the club, rather than simply supporting the sport in whichever particular city or town in which it is being played.

The nickname a club takes on is also vital to attracting the junior fans that are critical to a club’s fan base. Those of us old and cynical enough to mock the name Fury may well do so, but there’s a good chance that the youngsters of Townsville will love it. It will encourage many of them to give the team a go, and embrace the team as their own. Many would do this without the nickname, but more will with that something extra.

With the glut of sporting clubs about to compete for the hearts of the Gold Coast public, creating a tangible club atmosphere is critical to success. The AFL team will not be taking on a nickname and will be simply known as Gold Coast FC (a first in AFL history).

To really stand out, Gold Coast United needs something more than this. It doesn’t necessarily matter what it is (hopefully though they can do better than Fury, Roar or Hearts), but it does matter that they have something.

The club is a new one, and pretending it isn’t with a ‘traditional’ club name is a bad move. I look forward to seeing something more when the club finally launches itself.