ADVERTISEMENT

MLS

Yep, I really don't have any idea what that sign means
And that’s the thing. There isn’t much public or soccer fan support for MLS becoming the thought police and deciding what people will understand and tolerate. So they just ban it all. It’s no different than the UEFA stance which wouldn’t let Germany and England wear poppies on their kit on a game on November 11 against each other because what happens when Bosnia plays Serbia? Israel and Iran?

Same with NYCFC. Your intentions and instincts are good, but your facts are a little fuzzy. The right wingers were never an official NYCFC supporters group. However, the predominately white and franchise chummy supporters group allowed one or two known white supremacists into their section on a regular basis. Folks disagree whether the capos knew that. Anybody that buys a ticket can sit there, so what’s the political test for someone who just buys a ticket and does nothing but stand and cheer as instructed? Should MLS be policing people’s political values if they are not disruptive? The answer was no. Should one fan be ejected because 10 fans feel “uncomfortable” sitting next to him because of what he might be thinking? Does the club automatically endorse those thoughts by selling him a ticket?

Later one person made an objectionable gesture and was ejected. Several others were involved in a brawl with Red Bull fans and were banned. That led to their knucklehead friends attending games and arguably displaying tattoos and making hand gestures designed to taunt anyone who objected to them being there. They co-opted NYCFC logos for use with their hate group and circulated that on social media. If the club knew about it, they did nothing. MLS’s failure to ban those people on political grounds has led to these demonstrations. The other official supporters group, which bills itself as Latin based fanned the flames to try and boost their membership.

In contrast, Timbers Army has made it clear that antifa members are welcome, even when masked, to display their signs, in defiance of the policy and that the supporters group as a whole supports their violent message.

It’s a mess.

And it’s MLS’s fault. Don’t spend millions promoting your sport as the sport of choice for young urban lefties then not expect them to demand you toe their political line when they invest their time money and energy into your business venture.
 
Last edited:
Each team has a supporters group, kind of like the GHC, but they aren’t connected with the team. They are privately run. Some teams have more than one. Most have a deal with the team to buy bulk tickets at discount prices that they then sell to their members at face value. The money made from that venture, in addition to dues revenue, is used, in part, to create cloth banners/signage that celebrates the team, or remembers a big win, taunts the visiting team, says goodbye to a retiring player, etc. Its different each game. The Italian word is tifo. (Tee-fo)

The Pacific Northwest teams have elaborate tifo, sometimes several stories tall over covering an entire section of the stadium. In conjunction with that, MLS has previously allowed team colored flags to be waved. Then they allowed the rainbow flag to be waived to try and boost attendance and sell rainbow themed kit. Some stadiums allowed flags related to the asylum crisis showing support for those claiming lawful status.

Some of the supporters groups are more political than others with several tolerating antifa members waving anti-nazi posters and calls to punch nazis. Others wave a sign that is associated with The Iron Brigade which was historically a militant anti fascist group. In New York, NYCFC has been aware, and took no formal action against, a group of supporters, who claimed to be a formal supporters group, who are white supremacists.

Now that they let it go on a bit, there have been some minor fist fights in the stands. We aren’t talking Milwall away to Leeds or even a Raiders game. Mostly millennial nerds thinking they are fighting, but a few minor injuries. Most of them from falling down, not being punched. MLS is concerned and is trying to pull back.

Regardless of their views, I condemn them both. I go to the game to get away from politics and the dumbest thing in the world is getting into a fist fight over American soccer, which is what many of these political signs are designed to provoke.
Thanks for the explanation. The Reno USL team has a supporters group, the Battle Born Brigade, but they are totally apolitical.
 
Thanks for the explanation. The Reno USL team has a supporters group, the Battle Born Brigade, but they are totally apolitical.
As BLA points out, if you know what you are looking for, you may be surprised how political some of the groups are.
 
Talk about misinformation. I don't have to "work the twitters" because I was at the game. The most violent sign was "Portland punches Nazis".

Here's your crowd full of Antifa thugs:

TA_silentprotest_quietArmy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
MLS needs to stay out of it and let the clubs police it and more from a fan safety standpoint than anything else. If you let groups bring signs, so be it, but you can't discriminate against one or another. Personally, if I know what the majority political view is in a place where I am at and I know it may be diametrically opposed to my personal views, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and watch the game. Heck, I was a Pats fan in Arrowhead for the AFC Championship last January...I just kept my mouth shut and simply cheered when my team did something good (not a political view, but same context of not wanting some drunk KC fan to pick a fight just because I was on the other side from their fandom).

If you go into a situation and flashing supposed secretly racial hand gestures or throwing up Nazi hand salutes or have a sign that says "I'm ANTIFA here to kick Nazi ass", you're just looking for trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
Unlike the other leagues, MLS depends on ticket sales. They are wary of anything that will impact ticket sales and don’t want to pay for the facial recognition to ban people. What you are describing is a risk of alienation to a sizeable number of people who may purchase tickets
 
Yep, I really don't have any idea what that sign means
The Iron Front (German: Eiserne Front) was a German paramilitary organization in the Weimar Republic that consisted of social democrats, trade unionists, and liberals. Its main goal was to defend liberal democracy against totalitarian ideologies on the right and left, and it chiefly opposed the Nazi Party with their Sturmabteilung wing and the Communist Party of Germany with their Antifaschistische Aktion wing. Formally independent, it was intimately associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The Three Arrows, originally conceived for the Iron Front, became a well known social democrat symbol representing resistance against Nazism, Communism and reactionary conservatism during the parliamentary elections in 1932, and was adopted by the SPD itself.
 
The Iron Front (German: Eiserne Front) was a German paramilitary organization in the Weimar Republic that consisted of social democrats, trade unionists, and liberals. Its main goal was to defend liberal democracy against totalitarian ideologies on the right and left, and it chiefly opposed the Nazi Party with their Sturmabteilung wing and the Communist Party of Germany with their Antifaschistische Aktion wing. Formally independent, it was intimately associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The Three Arrows, originally conceived for the Iron Front, became a well known social democrat symbol representing resistance against Nazism, Communism and reactionary conservatism during the parliamentary elections in 1932, and was adopted by the SPD itself.
Thanks.
 
The Iron Front (German: Eiserne Front) was a German paramilitary organization in the Weimar Republic that consisted of social democrats, trade unionists, and liberals. Its main goal was to defend liberal democracy against totalitarian ideologies on the right and left, and it chiefly opposed the Nazi Party with their Sturmabteilung wing and the Communist Party of Germany with their Antifaschistische Aktion wing. Formally independent, it was intimately associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The Three Arrows, originally conceived for the Iron Front, became a well known social democrat symbol representing resistance against Nazism, Communism and reactionary conservatism during the parliamentary elections in 1932, and was adopted by the SPD itself.
Exactly. It is now associated with a direct call for violent action in the United States.
 
It's as much of a direct call for violent action as the Betsy Ross flag is a direct call for the re-institution of slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
I don't see the flag as a direct call for violent action. The Antifa crowd is another story. I don't understand a group formed to fight fascism who dresses up in all black including masks and goes around committing acts of violence and destruction against other citizens. Their agenda seems at odds with their actions.
 
I don't see the flag as a direct call for violent action. The Antifa crowd is another story. I don't understand a group formed to fight fascism who dresses up in all black including masks and goes around committing acts of violence and destruction against other citizens. Their agenda seems at odds with their actions.
They wave that flag. It’s essentially their flag at this point. They call for direct action. People therefore treat the flag as a call for violent action.
 
Talk about misinformation. I don't have to "work the twitters" because I was at the game. The most violent sign was "Portland punches Nazis".

Here's your crowd full of Antifa thugs:

TA_silentprotest_quietArmy.jpg
Meh.

Here’s a link to a good local article explaining the position of the team along with a photo of a masked antifa member displaying the symbol at a Portland rally. One of many examples of the symbol’s presence at violent protests.

https://www.wweek.com/news/business...e-park-amid-objections-from-the-timbers-army/
 
Last edited:
It's as much of a direct call for violent action as the Betsy Ross flag is a direct call for the re-institution of slavery.
One of the arrows in the symbol symbolizes direct action. The other two are elections and education. It’s hard to argue that the flag isn’t a call for direct action when one of its symbols stands for direct action. It’s like arguing the 13 stripes in the US don’t symbolize the 13 original states.
 
And to be clear: I’m not arguing in favor of the six or seven nazi wannabes at NYCFC. Nor do I think MLS has taken the right position. I just think they set themselves up with poor choices. And I think it’s fine if anyone really wants to wave flags that say No fascism Always Seattle or whatever. I’d much rather watch soccer. But I do think the Seattle ownership has it right. You can be on the best side of this issue while still understanding that violent groups can co-opt a symbol and thus make the symbol inappropriate in some situations. Disagreeing with people who want to display the symbol anyway because they subjectively believe it’s fine does not make the ownership bigots.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
MLS needs to stay out of it and let the clubs police it and more from a fan safety standpoint than anything else. If you let groups bring signs, so be it, but you can't discriminate against one or another. Personally, if I know what the majority political view is in a place where I am at and I know it may be diametrically opposed to my personal views, I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and watch the game. Heck, I was a Pats fan in Arrowhead for the AFC Championship last January...I just kept my mouth shut and simply cheered when my team did something good (not a political view, but same context of not wanting some drunk KC fan to pick a fight just because I was on the other side from their fandom).

If you go into a situation and flashing supposed secretly racial hand gestures or throwing up Nazi hand salutes or have a sign that says "I'm ANTIFA here to kick Nazi ass", you're just looking for trouble.
20 year old kids aren’t as smart as you. And violent clashes between right wing and left wing groups is a REAL problem in Portland now. The political leadership and the police have done little to stop it. There’s a very real possibility that this violence could spill over into the stands at a game. MLS doesn’t need that publicity. The Timbers don’t need that legal liability. It could bankrupt the club. Hidden problem: who wants to bet they are doing it to stay in compliance with insurance requirements.
 
Last edited:
20 year old kids aren’t as smart as you. And violent clashes between right wing and left wing groups is a REAL problem in Portland now. The political leadership and the police have done little to stop it. There’s a very real possibility that this violence could spill over into the stands at a game. MLS doesn’t need that publicity. The Timbers don’t need that legal liability. It could bankrupt the club. Hidden problem: who wants to bet they are doing it to stay in compliance with insurance requirements.
Me
 
The confidence of someone 3,000 miles away speaking on the issues of Portland is a good reminder that we could all stand to talk a little less on issues we don’t fully understand and listen a little more.
 
And to be clear: I’m not arguing in favor of the six or seven nazi wannabes at NYCFC. Nor do I think MLS has taken the right position. I just think they set themselves up with poor choices. And I think it’s fine if anyone really wants to wave flags that say No fascism Always Seattle or whatever. I’d much rather watch soccer. But I do think the Seattle ownership has it right. You can be on the best side of this issue while still understanding that violent groups can co-opt a symbol and thus make the symbol inappropriate in some situations. Disagreeing with people who want to display the symbol anyway because they subjectively believe it’s fine does not make the ownership bigots.
You're right about the MLS approach to this...it almost seems as though their action and the way they want the policy enforced is almost antagonizing the fans. Fans in Portland and Seattle are among the best in MLS in terms of knowing how to support their teams, being into the games, and knowledgeable about soccer. I'd venture a guess that most of the better fan bases hate the corporate side of MLS which is actually hurting the development of the game and league overall. StL might be the only city that has a favorable view of Garber right now but that will fade once they start playing and the MLS politics of allocating players to certain cities to drive up TV ratings will start pissing them off b/c StL won't be one of those cities to get the aging int'l stars or Mexican players not ready for Europe.
 
MLS caved. Supporters can wave the Iron Front if it doesn’t inspire violence. All other political speech is still banned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT