NYC FC: How You Like Them Yaya Toures

A missed chance to be United?

My father likes to joke that he’s cousins with Manchester City Football Club owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan. 

Those who know anything about Arabic know that a) his first name is Mansour and our last name is Mansoor, which would preclude any real relation; and b) Mansour/Mansoor is like the Smith of the Arab world, it’s an incredibly common name that spans nearly every region in the Middle East and North Africa.

Despite a lack of filial or any other genealogical connection, my father still roots for the Citizens despite my howls of protest as a die-hard Arsenal supporter. 

“Did you see Yaya Toure’s penalty? So calm and professional. Why can’t Arsenal sign players like that?” he’ll ask, not with any malice. He just likes watching me rend my Invincibles-era scarf. 


So it’s with mixed emotions that I find myself looking forward to Sheikh Mansour’s newest venture, NYC FC, modeled in part on their Premier League cousins, MCFC. There are only two problems: I hate the name and I hate orange piping in the badge. 


It’s the former that contributor Tio Pelotas took issue with when I suggested the name should be NYC United. He protested that it’d be trolling MCFC supporters, who hate no one and nothing more than the damned United, the Red Devils, ManYoo, etc. But I contended that the name NYC United would fit better for a couple of reasons. 

First, they’re the team of the five boroughs of New York City, uniting the disparate fan bases and natural enemies among the citizens of different parts of the city. Yes, we’re one big, happy city, but we generally sneer at each other based on where we live and where we’re from. There’s like a cascade of snobbery, with Manhattanites looking down on those in the outer boroughs; the Brooklyn hipsters insisting on how much cooler they are than the sold-out, soulless “city” people and the passé denizens from Queens; the natural, baseball-born rivals between Queens and the Bronx; and generally no one really cares about Staten Island anyway.

But a city united behind one sports team, that’d be novel, not seen since the city as a whole loved the Knicks in the early 1990s, a fleeting time when we could all call one team ours. Now with the Brooklyn Nets, that’ll never happen again. 


But NYC FC name just lacks that sense of togetherness. It can’t really convey that they’re the only real soccer team (sorry New York/Jersey Red Bulls/Metrostars or whoever you are now) that represents us. 

And they’ll already say united on their shirts. If the main sponsor is Etihad Airlines, like the Citizens, NYC FC’s shirts will be emblazoned with the word Etihad, which means united in Arabic. Citizens fans will just have to accept that their cousins are from the same family but have a different last name. Even if it reminds them of their main rivals.


And who the hell likes their family anyway? As the old Arab proverb goes, unity means many people working together as if they are all one person.

As for the orange piping? It reminds me of the Mets and Knicks. Who wants to emulate those two franchises? Since the Yankees own a stake in the team, I’m surprised they didn’t push for pinstripes. Now that would have made a statement.


Oh, and my father won’t be supporting NYC FC. My parents live in Orlando and are looking forward to their adopted hometown Orlando City joining the MLS in 2015.

I can’t wait until NYC FC raids their ranks and I get to ask my father how he likes them Yaya Toures. 

- Adam Manzor

Klinsmann needs to develop a plan

A 2-0 defeat to Ukraine in a friendly 3 months before the World Cup in Brazil isn’t an awful result. A loss is never great, but at this stage Jurgen Klinsmann should be looking to develop more of a game plan.

The US are solid at the back (as long as John Brooks doesn't play again), but lack a natural ball player. But they’re not alone in that respect – central defenders who can bring the ball out and pick a pass are few and far between.

Tim Howard is a very good goalkeeper, he's prone to the occasional error, but it's his kicking leaves a lot to be desired and that’s partly where the problem lies. 

Because the full-backs are not getting the ball quickly, Howard and his defenders are forced into playing long balls up to Jozy Altidore, who really doesn’t have much support even if he wins the initial header. Clint Dempsey looked rusty, and that’s ok, but there need to be other options other than Deuce.

Jermaine Jones and Sacha Kljestan don’t offer even half of what Michael Bradley does – but the lack of alternatives right now is a little concerning. There is good energy and commitment in the midfield engine room, but not a lot else.  

This leads to lots of short passes in meaningless areas, and a dependence on the long ball and break downs in play rather than having a solid strategy to create chances.

There was no one on the bench that Klinsmann could convincingly turn to if a goal was needed. It took 87 minutes before the US managed a shot on target - that says a lot. 

Yes, Landon Donovan is out and Aron Johannsson isn’t quite up to speed with the team yet, but the US needs some pace and creativity. These players don’t grow on trees and every team, club or national, is desperate for them. But the weak CONCACAF qualifying group, and friendly games like this are a chance to experiment.

Klinsy will get a chance to look at his domestic-based players in next month's friendly against Mexico in Arizona and perhaps a few more friendlies, including one scheduled for Red Bull Arena sometime shortly before the tournament.

Unfortunately, a subdued loss to an average Ukraine team won’t tell Jurgen very much. He might know more about what (and who) not to go with, but it’s highly unlikely he knows his best XI, let alone what XI will start against Ghana in Natal on June 16.

It's about time CONCACAF made a change

There are lots of relieved people in Mexico this morning. Thanks to some late goals for the US against Panama, Mexico still have a chance to make it to Brazil next summer.

The Mexican drama has been like one of their infamous soap operas. An overhead kick with 5 mins to go to beat Panama, an unbelievable miss by Chicharito, followed by a Graham Zuzi header for the US in stoppage time to give the Mexicans a lifeline after they lost away in Costa Rica.

Mexico have always qualified when the competition was held in the Americas (1930, 50, 62, 70, 78, 86 and 94), and no doubt will have a good following if they beat New Zealand in two-leg playoff in November.

But surely it's now time that the CONCACAF region made a change in how teams qualify - or maybe FIFA need to look at taking one of the 3 automatic places away - or at least ditch the Intercontinental playoff game.

Mexico finished 4th in a group of 6, only won 2 games, scoring just 7 goals. This is undoubtedly one of the weakest Mexican teams in recent memory - they are so bad that they can't even rough teams up like they used to.

They finished behind the US, Costa Rica and Honduras - the latter two of which are highly unlikely to make it out of the group stages in Brazil. So why should Mexico get yet another chance to go? They have been very poor and don't deserve to be at the main event. The US have a decent team, but not one you would say is going to genuinely contend at the World Cup. Jurgen Klinsmann has done a very good job, and the US have completely dominated the region, but they really should - beating teams like Antigua & Barbuda, Guatemala and Jamaica should be pretty straightforward. But you can only beat the teams put in front of you.

And Mexico couldn't.

New Zealand won 6 of 6 in their region, but they should too - Tahiti and New Caledonia aren't much of a test either.

Maybe FIFA needs to revamp the qualifying process as it seems like they want some of the same teams there at every World Cup. With the current system, the US are pretty much guaranteed to be in, and it seems Mexico are being given more chances than most to also be there.