The question: should cities pursue action against teams who leave their cities ... but continue to call themselves by that name?

Reasons not to take action:
Even after they move, the mention of the spurned city can have promotional value to the spurned city.


Reasons to take action:
"perhaps" it would give the city some level of leverage in talks with the franchise if the city's naming rights could be enforced -- and consequently withdrawn -- if the team moves elsewhere.

Plus, one could easily see the "new home" location wanting the full benefit of being the franchise's new home. And, from a public awareness/perception, that is eroded if the former home site remains in the franchise name.

This would definitely be a precedent-bucking move, since a number of franchises have already moved (Cowboys, Jets, Giants, Commanders .to mention but a few). Not to mention the Bears not only leaving Chicago .... but Illinois altogether.

Thoughts?

I assume you're referring to teams such as the New Jersey Jets and Giants, Arlington Cowboys, Santa Clara 49ers, and soon to be formerly-Chicago Bears?

Smeghead4761 said:

---

I assume you're referring to teams such as the New Jersey Jets and Giants, Arlington Cowboys, Santa Clara 49ers, and soon to be formerly-Chicago Bears?

---

Yup.

Goodson said:

---

The question: should cities pursue action against teams who leave their cities ... but continue to call themselves by that name?

---

The first part would have to do with whether a city can lay any claim to the trademark of the team name. Some team names make a lot less sense after they move, which is why a lot of owners will change the name. It makes me think of the line from Baseketball "the Minneapolis Lakers moved to Los Angeles where there aren't any lakes, and the New Orleans Jazz moved to Utah where they don't allow music."

Cleveland got to keep the Browns moniker, but I don't know if their owners wanted to keep it or not. Since the Browns name I believe is specifically tied to the state of Ohio, they probably didn't want to take it with them to Baltimore. Even though the Hornets left Charlotte for New Orleans, they eventually gave or sold the name back to the new team and became the Pelicans.

Of course this hits close to home for any Oilers fan, but the only time I even care anymore is when the Titans wear Oilers throwbacks when they're playing us, which I don't think the league should allow. It's done for spite, and no other reason.

Chicago and the Bears have been headed toward a messy divorce for a while now. I've spent a decent amount of time in Chicago and short of taking over one of the parks and moving it, I don't know where else they could put Soldier Field. They would have had to play their games at Northwestern most likely which is considerably smaller than any NFL stadium. The team bought an old race track for a bunch of money, but the cost of the logistics alone if the city and state didn't step in was enough for the team to consider leaving the state entirely. I don't blame IL or Chicago for saying it's too much especially for a state that is run as poorly as theirs, but I don't blame ownership either, it's a business and they're looking for the best deal. Even if IL and Chicago gave $0 to build the stadium the logistical costs would still be significant if they wanted to keep them.