Episode 48. Teams without a City/State Name.
Only three professional teams do not have the name of a city or state in their identity.
Excited to welcome our subscribers to Episode 48 of the Sports Branding Substack.
Beginning in the 2026–2027 season, there are 124 pro sports franchises across the US and Canada who are part of the “Big Four Sports Leagues” — Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League and National Hockey League (apologies to MLS, WNBA and Professional Women’s Hockey League). One hundred and twenty-one of those teams follow a basic rule in team name branding: plant your flag! City or State name first. Team nickname second. Geography and local pride equals valued brand identity.
But there are three pro franchises don’t follow that standard city/state name rule.
It’s hard to imagine three franchises who compete at the highest level of North American sport without a city or a state in their official name, isn’t it? No municipal tether. No provincial claim. No regional modifier. Just a nicknames — standing alone.
In an industry built on civic pride, territorial rights and broadcast maps, that’s not a design oversight. It’s a deliberate positioning strategy.
Who are they? And more importantly — why does it work?
Are you able to name the three professional sports teams in North America, not named after a *city or a state? Of the three teams, only two of the teams are named for a “marketing” reason — with the intent of helping to brand an entire area rather than a specific city or state.
Go ahead, take a shot at the two teams which don’t claim a city or state prefix…
The third team without a city or state name in their current name is only temporarily without a city/state — which will be added once more time passes. We’ll explain…
*- Please note: we are NOT including the three Tampa “Bay” teams, the Buccaneers, Lightning and Rays, although they are named for the body of water known as the TAMPA BAY. However, the word TAMPA (the third most populous city in FL) appears within their name —- so we decided their three teams didn’t make the cut. It’s an interesting debate.
Ready… Set... Go…
#1. Athletics.
Okay, we start with a long time Major League Baseball team, the previous “Oakland” A’s. With their move out of Oakland — the Athletics are temporarily playing at Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento, California, which began in 2025 and expected to last through at least 2027, while waiting construction of their new stadium in Las Vegas.
Previous to Oakland, the Athletics played for 12 seasons in Kansas City, and before that, the A’s played in Philadelphia, beginning back in 1901.
The Athletics logo has gone through multiple versions across three cities since 1901. It started as a plain blue “A” in Philadelphia, shifted to elephant imagery for decades, then settled into the green-and-gold “A’s” letterform after the move to Oakland in 1968. The most recent change came in late 2024 when the franchise dropped “Oakland” entirely to reflect unfortunately, their departure from the Bay Area.
#2. New England Patriots.
When the city name “Boston” became too small for an AFL-NFL franchise.
A purposely strategic rebrand that a regional New England sports dynasty. In 1971, the Boston Patriots quietly became the New England Patriots — and in doing so, executed one of the most forward-thinking geographic rebrands in professional sports history. This was a moment in sports branding when geography becomes destiny.
At first glance, it looked like a simple name adjustment, but it wasn’t. It was a strategic branding and expansion strategy disguised as a minor geo relocation.
Q1. What is the back story of why the Patriots changed their name from Boston Patriots to New England Patriots?
The franchise was founded as the Boston Patriots in 1960 as a charter member of the AFL, the American Football League. For their first decade, they played in various Boston-area venues, even Fenway Park, but never had a permanent home stadium.
1. Nickerson Field - 1960–1962 - Boston University campus
2. Fenway Park - 1963–1968 - Boston Red Sox ballpark
3. Alumni Stadium - 1969 - Boston College
4. Harvard Stadium - 1970 - Harvard University
When the team moved to a new stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts in 1971 (then called Schaefer Stadium), ownership wanted a broader regional identity that better reflected their geographic footprint. Foxborough sits roughly midway between Boston and Providence, Rhode Island — making “Boston” feel too limiting.
Originally, the team considered “Bay State Patriots” but the NFL rejected it, leading to the "New England" rebrand to represent the entire region.
The name “New England Patriots” more accurately represented the entire six-state region and symbolically aligned with the colonial “Revolutionary War’” heritage that has defined the region for many years.
Q2. What were the marketing reasons the original AFL Boston Patriots did this?
The four reasons for the change was primarily both strategic and commercial:
Regional Expansion of Fan Base.
By adopting “New England,” the franchise positioned itself as the team for all six states — not just Boston-proper. This widened ticket sales, media appeal, and merchandise reach.Stadium Geography.
The move to Foxborough, Massachusetts made “Boston Patriots” geographically inaccurate since it’s 25 miles away. A regional name helped legitimize the relocation.Broadcast Footprint.
Television markets were expanding rapidly in the early 1970s. A broader identity increased relevance across Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, the six states that make up New England.Brand Differentiation in the NFL Era. With the AFL–NFL merger completed in 1970, the newly unified National Football League was becoming more national in scope. A regional identity gave the franchise greater stature and competitive positioning.
From a branding standpoint, this was an early example of geographic expansion strategy — similar to how other clubs later embraced statewide or regional identifiers.
Q3. When did they officially change their name? The team officially became the New England Patriots in 1971, coinciding with their move into Schaefer Stadium in Foxborough, which later became Gillette Stadium.
Q4. Was the name change met with any resistance? There was some initial pushback — primarily from Boston traditionalists who felt the city was losing “its” team. However:
The team had already struggled with stadium instability in Boston.
The regional identity quickly proved commercially smart.
As the franchise gained success — especially during the Tom Brady era — the “New England” name became one of the strongest regional brands in American sports.
In hindsight, the change is widely viewed as visionary. Rather than diminishing Boston, it elevated the club into a six-state flagship — one of the earliest examples of regional sports branding done right.
#3. Golden State Warriors.
When the city name of “San Francisco” became too small for an NBA franchise…
The strategic rebrand that built a modern professional basketball dynasty. In 1971, the San Francisco Warriors quietly became the “Golden State” Warriors — and in doing so, executed one of the most ambitious geographic rebrands in professional sports history. This was a moment in sports branding when geography becomes scale.
At first glance, it looked like a poetic name change. But it wasn’t poetry. It was positioning. It was expansion strategy disguised as civic pride. It wasn’t a relocation. It was a declaration praising the beauty and pride in the golden state of California.
Q1. What is the backstory of why the Warriors changed their name to Golden State?
The franchise began in 1946 as the Philadelphia Warriors, a founding member of the Basketball Association of America (which later became the National Basketball Association).
In 1962, owner Franklin Mieuli relocated the team west, rebranding as the San Francisco Warriors. They played primarily at the Cow Palace, just south of San Francisco’s city limits.
By the late 1960s, the Bay Area was evolving into a multi-city economic engine — San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose — all growing rapidly. Meanwhile, California itself was emerging as a cultural and economic superpower. In California, the San Francisco Warriors identity felt geographically confined.
When the franchise moved across the Bay to Oakland Coliseum Arena in 1971, ownership made a bold decision: remove the San Francisco “The City” entirely.
Not Oakland. Not San Francisco. Not even California. They chose “Golden State.”
A nickname long associated with California itself — rooted in the Gold Rush mythology and the state’s identity as land of sunshine and opportunity.
Q2. What were the marketing reasons behind the change?
Just like the Patriots’ shift to New England, this was strategic expansion masquerading as a California tourism marketing campaign rebrand.
The four reasons for the change was primarily both strategic and commercial:
Statewide Fan Base Expansion and Acceptance. “San Francisco” limited the franchise to one city. “Golden State” positioned the team as belonging to all of California — from Los Angeles to Sacramento to Silicon Valley. It created psychological ownership across the entire state.
Arena Geography. The move to Oakland in 1971 made “San Francisco Warriors” geographically awkward. Rather than switching to “Oakland Warriors,” ownership thought bigger. Why fight over city lines when you can transcend them?
Broadcast and Media Growth.
California was (and remains) one of the largest media markets in the country. A statewide identity expanded television appeal and merchandising beyond Bay Area borders — critical during a time when the NBA was fighting for national relevance.
Brand Differentiation.
There was only one “Golden State.” No other team in professional sports carried a statewide poetic moniker of that scale. It felt cinematic. Expansive. Mythic.
In branding terms, this was emotional positioning — not municipal labeling.
Q3. When did the change officially happen?
The franchise officially adopted the Golden State Warriors name in 1971, coinciding with its relocation to Oakland Coliseum Arena. The identity would later travel again — first to Oracle Arena’s modern era dominance, and eventually back across the Bay in 2019 to the Chase Center.
But the name never changed again and ultimatolden State was portable.
Q4. Was there resistance to the name change?
Yes — though not overwhelming. As expected some Bay Area loyalists questioned the abandonment of “San Francisco.” Others found “Golden State” unconventional, too gimmicky and lacking a core central fan base.
The Golden State Warriors reside in San Francisco now, but for many of the players and coaches who brought championships to the Bay Area in recent years, the connection to Oakland is undeniable. An
The city of Oakland is where the team played for 47 years and recently went to five straight NBA Finals inside Oracle Arena -- the connection remains stronger than ever.
There’s an uncomfortable branding contradiction embedded in the history of the Golden State Warriors, that deserves honest scrutiny.
The team arrived in the Bay Area as the San Francisco Warriors and rebranded to “Golden State” in 1971, positioning itself as a statewide franchise. On paper, that sounds expansive and inclusive. In practice, it meant the city that actually housed the team for nearly half a century was abstracted into a marketing concept.
That abstraction became more glaring over time. Oakland endured the departures of the Oakland Raiders, the Oakland Athletics, and decades earlier the Oakland Seals. Through all of that civic instability, the basketball team remained — physically in Oakland — yet symbolically aligned with an idealized “Golden State” identity. The brand drew statewide equity, but the emotional and economic investment was hyper-local.
There is a heavy dose of brand hypocrisy for the “Golden State” Warriors who called THE TOWN (Oakland) their home for nearly a half century — but who only paid homage to Oakland after they left the market…? Bad.
But the brilliance of the Golden State team name revealed itself over time:
• It avoided city rivalries within the Bay Area.
• It allowed the franchise to relocate within the region without rebranding again.
• It built a mythic, almost cinematic identity that scaled nationally.
When the dynasty years arrived — led by Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green — the “Golden State” name felt prophetic.
How Has the Rebrand Affected Their History?
The name created elasticity.
Unlike city-specific teams that become tethered to municipal politics, the Warriors operate under a statewide banner — a rare and powerful positioning tool in professional sports.
Today, “Golden State” reads less like a nickname and more like a platform brand.
In hindsight, the 1971 decision mirrors what the Patriots did that same year.
When the city “Boston” became too small, they became New England.
When the city “San Francisco” became too small, they became Golden State.
Both moves turned geography into destiny. And both built dynasties on the back of a “marketing-themed” name that refused to remain small. -The End.
 | A guest post by
|
The Warriors also went with the broad "Golden State" because they played some games all the way in San Diego, too.
For a year (1973-74), the Bullets were known as the Capital Bullets.
A bunch of teams, especially in the ABA (Virginia and Carolina), wanted to be a "regional" franchise, splitting home games among several cities in state to expand a footprint and attract a range of fans. It made sense as an idea, but flopped in reality. It was a pain for everyone to travel to "home" games, and usually a few of the home venues wouldn't draw many fans anyway.
That they never were called the Oakland Warriors was a travesty once they moved from the Cow Palace. There was the Kansas City - Omaha Kings which was a long name… from 1972-1975… yikes.