Talk:New York Cosmos (2010)

New page, or same?

Can we look for some consensus here? I'm thinking that the new Cosmos are an actual continuation of the original club, since there is an unbroken chain of ownership. This isn't a new organization trying to revive an old brand. Actually, the Cosmos now are in the same business they've been in since 1985 - youth soccer. I'm not sure this warrants separate pages. Thoughts? SixFourThree (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

There is a definite break between the original and modern day Cosmos. The only unbroken chain of ownership here is the ownership to a brand name - not a soccer team. The NASL Cosmos as a professional soccer organization did cease to exist. Just because the Cosmos name's owner continued using the brand for soccer camps does not mean the original soccer club lived on. The brand's rights have now been sold to a group wishing to establish its own organization from scratch. This new team bought a name but that is the only common ground the old and new share.--99.191.40.194 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cosmos ceased operations as a professional soccer club in 1985. Just because there have been soccer camps going by the new "Cosmos" since then does not mean that the current team is a continuation of the old club. Sure, it can recognize the old Cosmos as part of its heritage, but it is a new team. The current San Diego Sockers of the PASL-Pro have all the championship banners of the old club and recognize the heritage of the old club (they even purchased the logo and name of the old club), but they are a new team. The same should go for the Cosmos. Keep the pages the way they are: One for the old club, one for the new club. KitHutch (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but the original Cosmos organization didn't actually fold, as the Sockers did. It ceased some of its operations (the mens team), but others continued. It maintained an office, and remained an ongoing legal entity (which was what the new owners bought). The Sockers actually ceased operations and there were years when they didn't operate at all. Doesn't seem quite the same to me. SixFourThree (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Other keeping the trademark active, the Cosmos were dormant since the indoor team folded. Kemsley's group is an entirely new organization. Cmjc80 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Cosmos played a series of exhibition games in 1985 after the indoor team folded, but nothing since. "Maintaining an office" means giving Pinton a room to sit in while he tried to get numerous people to buy a name and logo! KitHutch (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm no fan of Pinton, I don't think that's actually true. He administered the Cosmos' youth soccer camps, part of the original organization (which was more than just a football team). There's an unbroken chain which leads right to Kemsley. SixFourThree (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.25.127 (talk)

Now that the New York Cosmos (2010) have joined the North American Soccer League I recommend changing the titles of the articles to reflect that the current club should get the "New York Cosmos" name and the defunct New York Cosmos from the defunct North American Soccer League (1968–1984) page be retitled "New York Cosmos (1971-85)" Eric Ando (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. -- Fifty7 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd back this too. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a sports organization mainly recognized by it's professional football/soccer team. However even when this team was disolved in 1985 the organization under the name New York Cosmos kept participating in other activities as promoting youth soccer camps.

Now they have re-founded the team only. Not the club or the organization itself, just the team. Is more like a frachise reactivation similar to waht happened with the San Jose Earthquakes. The team's name, logo, history and statistics were not transferred to the Houston Dynamo and remained inactive in San Jose until the Earthquakes were reactivated in 2007.

Even if you want to consider that the Cosmos ceased to exist there is the case of ACF Fiorentina whose article says: "The italian club was relegated at the end of the 2001–02 season and went into judicially controlled administration in June 2002. This form of bankruptcy (sports companies cannot exactly fail in this way in Italy, but they can suffer a similar procedure) meant that the club was refused a place in Serie B for the 2002–03 season, and as a result effectively ceased to exist."

Then it follows "The club was promptly re-established in August 2002 as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola with shoe and leather entrepreneur Diego Della Valle as new owner, and was admitted into Serie C2, the fourth tier of Italian football. The only player to remain at the club in its new incarnation was Angelo Di Livio, whose commitment to club's cause further endeared him to the fans. Helped by Di Livio and 30-goal striker Christian Riganò, the club won its Serie C2 group with considerable ease, which would normally have led to a promotion to Serie C1. However, due to the bizarre Caso Catania (Catania Case) the club skipped Serie C1 and was admitted into Serie B, something that was only made possible by the Italian Football Federation's decision to resolve the Catania situation by increasing the number of teams in Serie B from 20 to 24 and promoting Fiorentina for "sports merits". In the 2003 off-season, the club also bought back the right to use the Fiorentina name and the famous shirt design, and re-incorporated itself as ACF Fiorentina".

As you can see the "Fiorenina" kept it's history, it's legacy and all the honors that the club achieved through it's history. Why can't be the same with the Cosmos? --Locopunkie (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

However, there are two separate articles for San Jose Earthquakes (NASL) and San Jose Earthquakes (MLS) as well as three articles for Seattle Sounders (USL), Seattle Sounders (NASL), and Seattle Sounders FC. This article mentions the "revival" of the Sounders as one reason the name was sold, but that revival was a new expansion franchise being created. This team may share a nickname and logo with the original team, but it will not be the same team that won those Soccer Bowls in the 1970s/1980s. There is going to be a new Rochester Lancers team that plays indoor soccer in 2010. The new group purchased the name of the old NASL team. Does that mean that it will get to share an article with the NASL Lancers? KitHutch (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally id change the main article into New York Cosmos (NASL) and then when the current New York Comos are granted MLS status change that page into New York Cosmos(MLS) Welshman25 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me here is that the Cosmos organisation never actually shut down – the men's team may have stopped, but the actual organisation continued. I personally would wait until the Cosmos are granted some sort of right of succession from the original NASL club by MLS, and see what the club itself claims to be its foundation date in the coming months. For now, I'd keep the status quo. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it's irresponsible to suggest an unofficial founding date that is not recognized by the club but rather rendered via a subjective judgment by certain members of the Wikipedia soccer community without any substantiated documented evidence to back this. If the club were now a member of MLS with thier single entity model, then a case can be made since they would then be an expansion franchise an a certified "founding date" could then be verified. But to create a new article with a subjective founding date that is undocumented, unverifiable, runs counter to the very nature of Wikipedia's efforts at accuracy and accountability. It also blatantly ignores precedent set from previous wikipedia articles of similar nature and background. It blatantly ignores the requirement of verification and documentation of notability. There is no source supporting this New York Cosmos is a separate entity and until such can be found, then this separate article should not exist.

Until such a date that this club is awarded an MLS expansion franchise, thereby rendering an actual, verifiable, and researched founding date rather than a subjective judgement by editors who's opinion is that a new club has been formed, then a separate article is invalid. At the very least a legal definition that is resourced should be found to verify the claim that the current trademark owners are not within thier rights to establish the continuity of the franchise. A case can be made that "New York Cosmos (2010)" is not only redundant, but does not meet notability requirements as there is not a single source or valid legal theory (and if there is it should be linked in this discussion) that supports it. As it stands the article's existence rests on the basis of speculation rather than factual evidence. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 02:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

————

The distinction is this — Before August 1, 2010, there was no New York Cosmos organization that openly declared its existence. That day at Copa NYC was the grand announcement establishing itself to the public. There are news reports and press releases to back this fact up. Between the folding of the original Cosmos and the announcement of the new one, there was no professional sports team or organization. There was only a rights holder to the "Cosmos" name who could use it as he wished. We all know of the soccer camps, ownership of old videos and trophies, etc., but this does not mean there was a living, operating soccer franchise or football club. This man was not the New York Cosmos - he was just a man who owned the New York Cosmos name. And now he sold his rights to the name to a group that is - from the ground up - creating a brand new organization that did not exist beforehand. If we take the Cosmos name out of the equation, everything that is being created is original. By any other name, we'd all consider this to be the start of something fresh. Just because they bought the right to use an old name does not mean they are the same old team. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I still have issue with the verifiability of this. At the moment we have no basis based off of precedent that exists outside of the handling of North American Soccer on Wikipedia that supports this argument. No business law has been cited, and no previous precedent on Wikipedia. Plus the founding date isn't supported as an actual founding date but rather inferred by making an arbitrary judgement call on what we think qualifies as a founding date rather than that of the trademark holder who has true rights to make that claim until it can be legally disputed. I just feel uncomfortable setting such a precedent on a reference site. What other judgement calls might be made in the future? My personal opinion is that the articles should not have been separated until they actually were accepted into a league such as MLS when a verifiable break in continuity could be made. Speculation should not be presented as fact. Such a basis for creating a new article seems to be on any other article to be grounds for deletion, yet here we accept a "wait and see" stance as solid enough ground for the inclusion of an entirely new article that presents information that cannot be conclusively supported as fact. I don't agree with such a path becoming the norm on this site. I've said my piece. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 21:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. As you may be aware, I'm more of an expert on English soccer, and I know that in England the chain of ownership is observed, for example, Luton Town F.C. is still Luton Town, despite having been run by various corporate companies during that time. To be more clear, in 2008 the company controlling Luton Town (Luton Town Football Club Ltd) was dissolved and a new one (Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd) took over the club, its place in The Football League and so forth. I know that in England and just about any other European league they would, under the same circumstances, they would consider the two Cosmos to be one and the same because of the uninterrupted chain of ownership, regardless of the leagues entered. In US soccer they seem to be very rigid about preserving each team as seperate dependent on each league entered, and I believe this has something to do with the franchise system that is used. Your argument is very convincing, well done: It's made me think a bit more about this and I've changed my mind. I'll put the hatnote back up now. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my argument. The examples of Luton Town F.C and ACF Fiorentina lend some weight to the argument that we may have jumped the gun on separation of the articles. I've been of the mind that the articles should be linked to a greater degree than they currently are since there are other North American franchises that existed under similar models that have undergone periods of dormancy and in fact shifted leagues yet have remained represented in a single article. The most relevent example would be the Portland Beavers baseball club. Throughout it's history it has known several incarnations and moved through several leagues. The current incarnation was born in 2001 yet they recognize the history of every other Beavers team since 1903. Wikipedia editors in that case chose to accept the team's definition rather than implant their own. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia follow more to letter of what can be verified in black and white in the future so I agree with the manner that that was handled.

Regarding MLS franchises, I would like to see a legitimate effort be made to ascertain exactly what particular policy MLS and the teams in question actually follow in reference to the actual team's respective histories. MLS likes to downplay the significance of prior incarnations, but they've never been definitive on what that means to the respective teams and their rights to define their own club history. In other words, they've never clarified what a particular franchise such as Vancouver Whitecaps's rights are pertaining to determining the nature of their own history. I would like to see, even volunteer to communicate directly to gain the official stances on this issue and actually get more concrete foundation with which to construct our articles.

In this case I would suggest that, at the very least, the founding date needs to be completely eliminated from the infobox and the article should be re-titled "NY Cosmos Relaunch". At the moment that is all that can be verified about the current status of the team. Implying anything more stretches the accuracy of this article beyond what can currently be backed by any credible resource that I have seen thus far. As I said before, where the discussion goes if/when they join MLS is another case entirely, but we aren't there yet and must act accordingly. I can accept a compromise in this article without a merge so long as the implications that move beyond what is actually stated in print on a credible source are eliminated from this article. We cannot prove that they are a separate entity nor state a founding date that is backed in any publication. We know that this is a relaunch so the subject of the relaunch can be fodder for another article and lay the groundwork for an MLS article should we remain of the opinion that MLS franchises require different articles. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 02:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a quick flick through, I've adjusted both articles accordingly, as well as the template at the bottom and the attached "List of New York Cosmos seasons" article (which originally specified it only included "New York Cosmos (1971) seasons". As I have already stated, I have no doubt that in any European situation, the two clubs would be considered one and the same (there are countless English examples: not only Luton Town, but also, off the top of my head, Middlesbrough during the 1980s; there are many, many others). I encourage you to find the official club stance on this issue, since there does seem to be a big exception made for North American soccer franchises.

Another example would be the NFL's Cleveland Browns, who spent three years out of the game but retained the same history. There is no "Cleveland Browns (1946–1996)" and so forth. Also consider American teams which are relocated and renamed; they retain the same articles (for example New York/San Francisco Giants, Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts). However, in Europe they have almost the opposite stance; relocations tend to necessitate seperate clubs (see Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes for the most notorious of these).

Certainly, under any European model, and, it seems, any American model in another sport, they would be the same. Why should US soccer be different? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again for making the changes and accepting my argument. As for the Cleveland Browns example that you put forward, this is where the franchise model comes into effect with regards to MLS. It was a compromise between the NFL and the franchises that left which allowed the city of Cleveland to maintain the name and history until another owner came forward to take up their history. This is apparently not something that the NFL can force team owners to give up however, and some sort of deal was made with Art Modell. When the Houston Oilers, however, moved to Tenessee and became the "Titans", Bud Adams would not work out a similar deal. So the Titans maintain the Oilers history and records and could have kept the name had they chosen to. Subsequently, the name taken by the next Houston franchise the Texans was a name that was owned by the Kansas City Chiefs so a deal had to be worked out with them for use of the name only. In these examples we see that even within a franchise-model league, full history and trademarking rights belong soley to the owners of the teams. If the league wants to separate an owner from a particular trademark and it's history a deal must be worked out with the owner.

For another case study, whether or not a franchises' history can predate the league that it competes in, one can look into the example of the NHL's Original Six. Five of these teams were formed at or a later date than the NHL's inaugural season. One team, the Montreal Canadiens formed before the NHL ever existed. On it's team page, references to both it's NHL and NHA histories are made in the same article. The championship cup itself, the Stanley Cup also has an existence which pre-dates it's league and has been awarded to teams which never played a game in the NHL. So we have other sports in N. America where distinction and history crosses league lines as well as lines of time and ownerships.

Where this might differ from MLS is the league's single entity model. MLS team owners do not own the entirety of thier franchise in the literal sense. Technically they own about half of the team and the other half remains owned by the league. In exchange, the owner in effect becomes a shareholder with the league itself and can gain profits from it's Soccer United Marketing arm. So it is possible that MLS could dictate to the franchises what their histories are in ways in which other North American leagues, such as the USL cannot. What I would like to determine is whether or not they have actually done this. Or whether or not it truly matters. Personally I have less of a problem considering MLS clubs than I did with this particular article, because we seemed to finally be moving beyond a line which could be at least partially verifiable to one that seemed wholly speculative. I do intend to contact MLS and the teams in question to get an official stance however. I think it might be interesting research regardless of what comes of it. As for this particular article, my concerns are put to rest with the current changes. Thanks. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 11:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be very interested to find out how they respond. The impression I have got about MLS is that they like consider their franchises as separate from just about anything and everything else. Perhaps this has to do with their ownership structure and the Soccer United Marketing rights that stem from it; that is, by keeping the franchises completely within the MLS sphere, they retain all of the rights to them. It's an interesting thought. The Cosmos, however, appear to provide an exception to this because they are independently marketing themselves as we speak, without joining MLS first. I may be wrong, but I believe that other bidders for MLS franchises tend to bid for the MLS licence first and THEN choose the team name, colours and so forth; that is, to start marketing the club within the MLS structure. As I've said before, I won't pretend to be an expert on the North American game, because as I'm sure you're aware it's rather differently organised from the English and European models.

Interestingly, the Vancouver Whitecaps' website clearly states "since 1974" at the top of the page and details the entire Whitecaps history, not just the MLS. The Portland Timbers do the same, but the Seattle Sounders do not, giving their history as "Major League Soccer’s 15th team ... Fans voted for the team’s name, which links historically with the original Sounders of the NASL and the Seattle Sounders who played in the USL". I'm beginning to think that it may make more sense to consider this question by individual club – what each team claims as its history or does not – rather than having rigid, sweeping rules one way or the other.

If I were you, I would contact MLS for clarification on the issue – I would also perhaps try to get hold of the Cosmos' stance regarding this. I have noticed that they have never, thus far, claimed to be a new club, but rather as "revived" or similar wording. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sounders history in MLS differs greatly from that of the Whitecaps and Timbers despite their proximity and similar histories prior to MLS. For one thing, the Sounders are the only one of the three to have new majority ownership in MLS. Adrian Hannauer, who owned the USL verson of the Sounders as well as trademark rights and historical rights, was simply not wealthy enough to finance an MLS bid so Joe Roth was brought in as the majority owner with Hannauer staying as minority owner as well as general manager of the team. They were also the first of the three to join MLS, and from the beginning the idea seemed to be to run as far away from the Sounders' legacy as possible. They initially were not going to keep the name at all despite Hannauer owning the rights to it. They initially did not include it as an option for fans to vote on when choosing the team name. It never even officially was an option, instead they added a "write-in" option and that's how the fans ended up voting it in.

Of the three teams, it would not be surprising for them to officially not recognise thier prior incarnations as part of their history, since the mindset when they joined the league was that the city would be confused if a differentiation was not made between the lower-league team and the current one. Since the Success of the Sounders two years ago, that attitude has changed, but it seems that the Sounders attitude towards their own history has gone on to shape how Wikipedians see MLS teams with prior incarnations and deal with their history and information. It's understandable, but may no longer be accurate. Vancouver and Portland did not change thier ownerships, and they both seemed intent on maintining their histories, although both changed their badges and kits. The Montreal Impact have a history that dates back 15 years and will likely do the same as they will also have the same ownership. So it may not be correct to paint these teams with the same colors that Seattle chose for themselves. But ultimately I agree that the question begins with MLS. I'll look into it sometime this week. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 12:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we're thinking along much the same lines. Keep us informed. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop rewriting history. The Cosmos folded in 1985. Just because one person maintained their trademark, it does not mean that these two franchises are the same. The Baltimore Colts existed as two separate franchises: Baltimore Colts (1947-1950) and Baltimore Colts. KitHutch (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the fact that the franchise remained the same after the move to Indianapolis, but thanks for the information anyway. I wasn't aware that I was rewriting history, but I will desist as you ask. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not history is being re-written seems to be an assessment that depends on the user's particular opinion on the subject. What can be quantified, however is whether or not a particular subject is verified. The article, as written, is in clear violation of Wikipedia Policy. You cannot simply decide that something is a fact, disregarding multiple precedents simply because you want to. The title of the article was changed as a temporary compromise while actual research could be done to gain further verification. You must be able to verify any claims that you put into an article. Per Wikipedia Policy, no original research can be represented in any article. Dictating to a trademark holder what your particular definition of a single entity or two consecutive entities without supporting evidence runs right up against that. The example that you mention is entirely dependent on whether or not the club or franchise in question chooses to recognise the history of the previous team as their own. The example that you list is separated as such bc that is how the team itself classifies its own history. I think we need third party mediation to settle this. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

————

I agree. I think the best thing would be to keep the pages separate, but to move the original New York Cosmos page to New York Cosmos (1971). What do you think? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that for the time being, we should keep the original team at New York Cosmos. Right now, when people talk about the New York Cosmos, they generally are referring to the original team. If the new organizatio starts playing game in some league, then maybe it would be time to change the articles' names. KitHutch (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that we are at least satisfied that different pages is the correct course of action, so I'll remove the merge suggestion bar; it's been up since August, which I think is long enough. We can come back to the naming of the articles later. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the English language, the word "the" is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. Why does one user insist on capitalizing "the" in every instance it is before the name "New York Cosmos." KitHutch (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that ShesNumber17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be here to promote the NYC. Smartse (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An old section, I know, but does the fact the club does it have any bearing on how the article should be written?

http://nycosmos.com/news/new-york-cosmos-0-6-manchester-united-0 for example. 86.180.186.203 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that may have something to do with how the company name is trademarked or something... I wouldn't change the article because of it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Only if the page title changes to "The New York Cosmos" as well. Which I think would be a bit silly. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Old Cosmos info & other article tweaks

Cliftonian, you did a great job on the article rewrite not too long ago. The details, sources, etc. were very much needed and the article is better for it. Now that I have some time, I will make a couple of critiques. 1) There seems to be too much info about the original Cosmos. While important details and relevant connections to the NASL club should of course be stressed, there seems to be a lot of extra background that doesn't have any direct bearing on the modern day incarnation. For example, do we need to know who original owned the first Cosmos, how many championships they won, and the players they signed to further this page's focus? Such information seems best left to the NASL club's article where those details are highly relevant and needed. 2) Similar to my first point, the images you added seem to be only partially important to the article's overall point. Yes - Pele, Cantona, and Chinaglia are all relevant to the modern day Cosmos. But an image of Chinaglia in his playing days - or any original Cosmos player - seems out of context no matter how important they are. Those images seem best left to articles about them and the clubs they played for. (I'd also make the pics a bit smaller but that's not really a big deal). I'll go ahead and be WP:Bold and make some edits but don't feel like I can't go back and compromise. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right, I put too much detail into the "Original Cosmos" section. This stuff can originally come from the main Cosmos article. The only change I'm making to your altered version is I'm putting an "Original Cosmos" section header back up with {{main|New York Cosmos}} beneath it. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the implied status of the New York Cosmos (2010) verified?

Is the status implied by this article; that the New York Cosmos are now a separate entity from the original Cosmos; verified by credible third party sources? Or do available sources present the Cosmos as a single established entity? What role do Wikipedia editors have in determining this, and how much of that rests with the current trademark holder? unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue what sources do we have that say the old Cosmos and the modern Cosmos are one-in-the-same? Has any Cosmos official gone on record to say they are the very same club from the 70s? Are there sources that prove continuing to hold rights to a trademark allows the entity the trademark originally represented continue to exist? Even if the specific date these new Cosmos were founded is debatable, the idea that they are the same as the NASL club seems even more dubious. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To that my argument is that we require verification per Wikipedia Policy on Verifiability. To be clear on what I mean I will quote:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.[1]

This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. For how to write citations, see Citing sources.

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

What seems dubious or seems right or wrong, does not matter at all, only what is in print. The very fact that our opinions diverge on the truth of the matter presents why this policy exists. It ensures the accuracy and neutrality of our encyclopaedia. Our articles should only represent that which can be positively verified and nothing more. In the absense of such verification then you revert to the status quo. The status quo in this case was the original single article. The only team who's existence is verified is the original team and all sources only point to this team as existing. No articles have stated the existence of a new team having been founded or a separate entity being created through the purchase of the original trademark. Beyond that we also have the Cosmos' website itself which would be an acceptable resource to verify the question, "How do the New York Cosmos define themselves?" After perusal, they appear to define themselves as a single entity continuous since the 1970's. The trademark itself has been actively used in the intervening time period, but I believe that judging what constitutes a single entity or multiple entities is beyond our power as Wikipedia editors, so it is irrelevent. The power to define the status of a company rests soley on third party verification. In the original form of this article a founding date was entered in the infobox with a citation to a source which however stated that the club had only been "relaunched". Nothing about a founding of a new club or a separate entity was in any way openly stated or even implied. In every article the words used are "revival" or "relaunch", but in none are the words "created" or "founded "ever used. If This, by the way, was why I suggested that the article be retitled, because "relaunching" is the only thing that can be verified from the articles listed as sources. We cannot represent a franchise or company in one way if it is only represented in print in every other article and the company's own website in another. If Blackbox77 (talk · contribs) can now concede that no founding date has ever been verified then on what basis does he conclude that the existence and therefore notability of a new franchise has been verified. What language can be quoted in any article or publication supporting the existence of a new club at all? Without answering this basic fundamental, then what citation are we using to support the existence of a separate team? This creates the dynamic that Wikepedians are creating facts which do not appear in publication anywhere. The bottom line to my question which I wish to open to the greater body of Wikipedia editors for consensus is this:

If the New York Cosmos declare themselves to be the same entity going back to the original founding, do we as Wikipedia editors have grounds to contradict this without alternative verification?

I have stated that I plan to send emails to the Cosmos to request a statement; in this case MLS' policy is irrelevent since they are not currently members of this league. But I also plan to gain verification from MLS and the clubs that have had similar questions raised about their own statuses. I believe that once determined we must adjust our articles to fit with their definitions, not our own. We cannot create determination or definition, we can only reflect the definition that prevails in publication. That is how we address the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" as well. Also, attempting to determine status on our own is a violation of "Wikipedia:No original research". The entire conversation that we have been having, throwing the histories of one team that supports on view vs the other can be construed as our own efforts to introduce our own definition based on our own research. This is against Wikipedia policy as well. Bottom line, if this team is not defined in publication as a separate entity then we should not present it as such per Wikipedia policy. In the end the accepted, and uncontroversial, articles of all the examples that we posted have one thing in common, they are consistent with how the teams in question define themselves.

Stressing verifiability prevents original research and ensures neutrality. The three main policies of Wikipedia are linked in this manner. They keep us honest. I am not pushing for my own definition, only proposing that we seek verification as that is the policy that has consensus throughout the Wikipedia Community. As a reference site it's important that we not represent information here that cannot be clearly supported elsewhere or contradicts what is presented elsewhere. It is this reason that I requested comment because it is the only means, short of nominating this article for deletion, that we can convene the wider Wikipedia community in seeking consensus on questions of Policy. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree the August 1, 2010 date may or may not be a founding date depending on whether the Cosmos themselves consider it one. I look forward to the outcome of your search. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We aren't going to be able to settle this either way without verification from the Cosmos themselves and/or third-party sources. Unak78 (talk · contribs) mentioned that he was going to approach them (as well as MLS) for clarification on the issue. For my part, I'm happy to leave the issue until he gets a response. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - No merge These pages should absoluetely not be merged. Just because someone keeps a trademark active for 25 years and sells it to a newly formed group does not make it a continuation of the NASL team. For all we know at this point, this new group will always stay a youth academy and never be a pro team. Plently of new teams tank on the identity of an older teams either by reregisterin a trademark or buying it from its current holder. Baltimore Orioles, Cincinnati Reds, San Jose Earthquakes, Vancouver Canucks, San Francisco Seals (ice hockey) are just a few of many examples of this. Just because an organization's marketing department claims the history of something that came before does not make it true. Take the Washington Nationals for instance. They claim the history of 3 teams and market themselves with two founding dates Washington Nationals: Since 1969 or 1905?Cmjc80 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports teams and the corporate history behind them are not one and the same. Just look at the example of Milton Keynes Dons F.C., which is in the fiscal sense a continuation of Wimbledon F.C., but in the sporting sense a separate entity (see Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes). At the other end of the scale, you have the numerous occasions around the world where clubs in fiscal trouble are dissolved and then refounded. Are these not separate teams? Why not? Or, indeed, why?

I'll give you some examples that I am aware of.

• • In 2008, the English soccer team Luton Town was in dire straits: It was in financial administration, and had just been relegated to the fourth level of English soccer, Football League Two. The company that owned the club was completely insolvent and had a history of financial mismanagement. The Football League, despite its obvious differences from American sports leagues, does have one aspect in common, which is that each club requires a "Football League share", without which it cannot play. The granting of this share at the beginning of each season is a matter of course, and is only ever in question should a club be in administration. As the season approached, Luton were still in administration and thus were unable to compete as they had no League share. In order to play, they had to exit administration, which they were only able to do by dissolving the old company (Luton Town Football Club Ltd) and having the League share transferred to a new company, Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd. The new company still competes as Luton Town, under the same name, same trademarks, etc. It is the same in every way sporting-wise, but is a new company in the corporate sense, under new owners. By your definition, these would be two different teams, but they clearly are not. This is not the only example, by any means; I have simply used it because it is one I am personally familiar with. Consider also:
  • ACF Fiorentina, explained above.
  • Middlesbrough F.C., another English club. I will quote directly from the club's Wikipedia page:

That summer, the club called in the Provisional Liquidator and shortly afterwards, the club was wound up and the gates to Ayresome Park were padlocked. Without the £350,000 capital required for Football League registration, a new rule, it seemed inevitable that the club would fold permanently. However, Steve Gibson, a member of the board at the time, brought together a consortium and with ten minutes to spare before the deadline, they completed their registration with the Football League for the 1986–87 season. Following the registration came both a change of club crest and a change of the official company name to Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Club (1986) Ltd.

• • In other words, the team was dissolved, then refounded under the same name, but run by a new company (Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Club (1986) Ltd). Would you not consider this to be a new club? Following your argument, should there not be a Middlesbrough F.C. (1986), and a Luton Town F.C. (2008), among many, many others? After all, in each case the individuals concerned have merely "ke[pt] a trademark active ... [and] s[old] it to a newly formed group"... Different corporate entities, same team. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge It seems clear to me that although the Cosmos stopped fielding teams, the youth camps continued until the whole company was sold to the new ownership group. I'd also like to go back to Unak78's point:

If the New York Cosmos declare themselves to be the same entity going back to the original founding, do we as Wikipedia editors have grounds to contradict this without alternative verification?

The Cosmos clearly assume the history of the original club, commissioning this limited-edition cap featuring the new crest and stars for each NASL championship.[1] I don't know that it should be our decision to make a different claim. SixFourThree (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Agreed. From what we have thus far, my decision would be Merge. The founding date may be given as 2010 at some point in the future, but until then, I agree that this is not our decision to make. I still await the response to Unak78's request for clarification with interest. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: A request for verification has been sent to the New York Cosmos. In the interest of transparency I will post the nature of the email that was sent to them on behalf of myself and 'WikiProject Football'.

• To whom it may concern:

I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the most-visited sites on the Internet, ranking near the top ten according to the estimates of Alexa Internet (alexa.com), and it is likely that many people visit our article about you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Cosmos) each day.

WikiProject Football is one of many subgroups of Wikipedia editors dedicated specifically to writing, organising, revising, and updating information about the many clubs, franchises, and footballers in the world in an effort to remain an accurate and informative reference resource to those interested in gathering information on the beautiful game.

Like many around the world, and especially in the United States, we at 'WikiProject Football' have been excited by the news of a potential return of the New York Cosmos and all that this entails. So in the interest of maintaining accuracy pertaining to the specifics of the revival of the franchise we are interested in getting your official determination of your club's history.

What is the official founding date of the franchise that you are currently attempting to reestablish? Do you hold your history to have begun in 1971 and culminating with your aquisition of the franchise? Or do you hold that August 1, 2010, the date that you officially announced your relaunch of the Cosmos, to be the official founding date of the franchise?

Please respond to us as specifically as possible as this may be used as a basis for our verification process. Verification is one of the core elements of our ability to keep Wikipedia as accurate and unbiased as possible. Therefore it will be greatly appreciated to have your assistance in our efforts to present this franchise's as accurately as possible.

Sincerely,

(My Name) & WikiProject Football

1/26/11

I apologize for taking so long to send this correspondence. In the future I intend to send similar requests for clarification to MLS, Sounders FC, Whitecaps FC, and the Portland Timbers. However as the Cosmos are currently an independant organization I have contacted them alone. I hope to to hear from them soon. When I have thier response I will post it here.

As to Cmjc80 (talk · contribs)'s example of the Washington Nationals, at no point does he address the issue of Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's main Policies. To the specifics, verifiability went first to MLB who enabled the Nationals to establish thier history for themselves. If there was confusion, it was in the Nationals themselve attempting to satisfy to different segments of nostalgia before finally settling on 1969. The author of the article relates the confusion this causes, but at no point suggests that MLB or the Nationals do not have the authority to determine thier official franchise history. Had the Nationals decided initially on 1905 as thier founding and we chose to post 1969 here we would be violating Wikipedia policy for Verifiability. There can be no grey area here. We don't have the authority to make judgement calls here. Cmjc80 (talk · contribs), this is not intended to be a slight, but I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies and understand them for yourself. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Unak78; I look forward to the Cosmos' response, whatever it may be. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. If you're going to try to change the way all of these pages are handles, I suggest you start a task force project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force to involve as many editors as possible. Also, I keep seeing statements about Youth Camps being active between prior to 2010. Please provide evidence of this continued business to go along with that statement. How many camps were held? Where were they held? How often were they held? When was the most recent camp? Cmjc80 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. The camps were held by G. Peppe Pinton at Ramapo College, Mahwah, New Jersey, continuously from 1977; he coached them himself until 2003. Also see this, which I got from the Wayback Machine, which shows them running in 2008; and this, from 2001 ("These summer camps for boys and girls included the Cosmos Soccer Camps, the Pelé Soccer Camps, the Franz Beckenbauer Socker [sic] Camps, the Giorgio Chinaglia Soccer Academy, Werner Roth Soccer Safari, Carlos Alberto Soccer Camps and the Hubert Birkenmeir [sic] Goalkeeping Camps"). The camps ran last year (2010), judging from the website, and listings are up here for this year (2011) at the same location. Judging from all of this the camps were were held at least once a year. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cmjc80 (talk · contribs): at the moment, I'm only concerned by this article since the circumstances concerning this franchise are very different from the other franchises that have been split. Before addressing the task force on anything, first I want first hand information from the clubs and the league itself.

In addition to this I want to consult editors from outside of the entire project who have no bias involved in determining whether or not the issue of verifiability has been addressed primarily focused on only this article. I'm uncertain that members of the project, and in particular Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/United States and Canada task force, aren't looking at this issue with blinders on. An impartial perspective is necessary. Ultimately I will seek admin assistance in addressing the question of verifiability pertaining to this article alone. All I care about is that we're following Wikipedia policy, and if we are not then there must be a valid reason not to. The problem is that it doesn't seem as though this topic has even been considered when deciding to create articles, which is plainly bad practice. It's not encyclopaedic.

If it can be proven that this article is verifiable then I'll desist. But verifiability is not supposed to be negotiable. Especially when it comes to determining whether our content is the subject of concrete evidence, or conjecture. That is why I do not believe that this is something for the WikiProject Football or the Taskforce to be able to avoid addressing. But right now we are only concerned with the Cosmos. Can we ignore what the Cosmos say about their own history with absolutely no documentation that states implicitly otherwise? For that matter, can we ignore 90% of published material from the past several months by periodicals such as the NY Times and others which do not make a distinction between the Cosmos of the 70s and today. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 23:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess this clarifies the issue: this article from the Cosmos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.85.45 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - looks like the Cosmos answered your letter, Unak. SixFourThree (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

"40th Birthday" article Just thought I'd post this article from the Cosmos, I think it's relevant to the above debate. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess this clarifies the issue: this article from the Cosmos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.85.45 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The argument "We are the Cosmos because we say so" is weak and very flawed. In that case, anybody or anything could claim to be something they are not. Verifiability would be reduced only taking people at their word which of course we can't do. Would we believe the new NASL if they claimed to be the return of the exact same previous league? We of course wouldn't. These entities are the same in name only. This is verified be the documented existence of a group that had never existed prior Kemsley's initiative. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In most cases, I would agree with you. But this one is different - there is a clear unbroken chain from the original on-field club to the youth soccer camps to the new ownership group. This isn't uncommon in world soccer, where clubs are more than just a single team - they might have stopped fielding a team in any pro league, but the Cosmos as an organization surivived. Kemsley's group bought more than just a name and logo; they also bought all the trophies, the papers, shelves and shelves of game film, and everything else that the Cosmos organization retained from its days in the NASL. So unlike many or most instances, where a dormant brand is revived in the name of nostalgia, this one can actually make a claim towards being the same organization. And since the Cosmos have indeed made that claim, how can it be Wikipedia's place to be the tell them they are wrong? SixFourThree (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

These soccer camps are a major sticking point and it needs to be understood they do not matter whatsoever to the discussion. The youth soccer camps were not apart of the New York Cosmos football club proper. These camps (operated by Pinton's company Soccer Camps of America, Inc.) used the name "Cosmos" because Pinton himself owned the right to use the name —- not because the former NASL institution still existed. Pinton via Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc. (now an LLC) - an entirely separate legal entity - owned the "Cosmos" trademark, trophies, etc. Because he bestowed these legally and organizationally separate camps with the permission to use the name, it does not mean these youth camps have anything to do with the correct "lineage" of the NY Cosmos. Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc. is the only legal entity we should be focusing on.

Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc. was the name of the corporation setup to run the New York Cosmos when the club was owned by Warner Bros. The corporation was bought by Chinaglia's group and eventually moved on to Pinton when the team folded. Now when we look at nycosmos.com today, it is New York Cosmos, LLC. running the show. This corporate entity first filed with the state of New York on April 30, 2010 (link). The date is irrelevant other than to show there wasn't just a simple name change. This is a brand new company that bought the rights to use the "Cosmos" name. It did not buy a soccer club as the soccer club folded in 1985. A corporation continuing to exist as the legal owner of a trademark does not mean the New York Cosmos survived. Unlike Fiorentina and Luton Town that had different legal entities continue to field teams year after year, there is no such lineage to point to with the Cosmos. The club and soccer organization folded. Now a brand new club is being started from the ground up by Kemsley's group. They could have named this club anything they wanted but instead they bought the rights to the "Cosmos" name. They did not purchase a soccer club from Pinton. --Blackbox77 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure they did - they just bought a soccer club that didn't have a first team. A corporate reorganization does not invalidate the continuity of ownership, even if it includes a change of name. Pinton maintained not only the trademarks but all the assets of the Cosmos. He reorganized but maintained the trademarks, kept selling club merchandise, kept the archives and all trophies, and clearly intended to keep the Cosmos organization alive. So Pinton, the owner from 1985-2010, agrees that it's the same organization. The new owners agree that it's the same organization. Again, I this unak's question remains valid: If all parties to the transaction say x, who are we to tell them they are wrong? How would it not be a violation of Wiki's principles to insert our opinion? How would that not be OR? SixFourThree (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Seconded. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only did they not have a first team, they didn't have anything. It is not an opinion that a soccer club did not exist. I'm not arguing there isn't a continuity of ownership concerning the name, etc. because obviously there is. I'm saying that a corporate entity standing in as a caretaker for trademarks and trophies does not equal a soccer club. In the eighties the original soccer club folded with the corporation running it continuing on. This corporation - not running a soccer club - sold it's assets to a new company that is now starting a new soccer club. This new soccer club did not pre-exist beforehand and to say it did would be conjecture. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, how is it your place to define what is or is not a soccer club? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I was under the assumption a soccer club - and a sports club in general - participates in athletic events, amasses players to form a standing roster, keeps a coaching/training staff, and other duties expected of an organization that puts athletes in competition. (If that sounds controversial, please help me hone my definition.) Are we claiming a corporation that does none of this can be defined as a soccer club? It can be documented a sports club ceased to exist in 1985 while its owner - a separate entity - continued on. A new owner has now bought what the previous had rights to and now wishes to begin a new sports club. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Our main concern is what we can verify from sources, and I have actually yet to see a single reference that defines the Cosmos as anything other than the same team, just making a return to the major leagues. Why should we take matters into our own hands? I'm sorry if it seems like I'm ignoring your argument, but I am listening; I'm just trying to get over that it doesn't matter what you or I think, the Wikipedia policy is what we can verify; and for that reason, the best option (at least at this time) is to merge them and post the foundation as 5 February 1971. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was the point I was trying to make. SixFourThree (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

Glad to be of help, friend. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's clear that these articles should be merged at least until such a time as the team joins MLS, where the subject can be revisited. The Cosmos clearly indicate that they define their founding as 1971, every source that I've seen from other publications do not break from this. At this point we should merge these articles. There is no verifiable support for the existence of a separate article at this point. Do we have consensus that this article, as stated, is not based on verified information? unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No but I don't suppose my position on the subject has changed anyone's minds even a bit. I feel I've brought up numerous legitimate issues that are either not being responded to or being answered with the same points I was attempting to address.

Claiming these new Cosmos are the same as the old because they (and a bunch of journalists who regurgitate press releases) say so is dangerous and flawed verification. By such logic, anybody reviving an old name can claim to be something they are not. We need something more substantial if what they say is truly correct. Additionally it needs to be understood that Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc. does not equal the New York Cosmos. The corporation owns the club and is not the club itself (e.g. Andell Holdings LLC controls the Chicago Fire, New England Sports Ventures LLC controls Liverpool FC, etc). These separate companies can carry on when a soccer club folds — which is exactly what happened in 1985. This can be verified. Because this new group bought some trademarks and trophies does not mean they were handed the reigns to an existing soccer club. To say otherwise needs a stronger reason than "because they say so." Words like "revived" and "relaunched" are vague and do not directly imply an exact identity. The only alternative is to keep separate articles based off the verified information that 1) the original club folded and did not exist after 1985 and 2) the new club's only verifiable connection to the past is they own the right to use the original's image. Beyond this there is no credible evidence.--Blackbox77 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem - I don't think we all agree with your contention that "Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc. does not equal the New York Cosmos". The team certainly does not agree. Sometimes the two are in fact equated. We've seen it in other sports, where an organization fails to field a team for a period of time and yet, because the corporate entity continues to exist, the new team is considered a continuation of the old, only with a period of dormancy.

I think the other article states it best in the current introductory paragraph calling the Cosmos an "American soccer organization" rather than calling it a "soccer team." That seems a sound approach to me, rather than insisting that the team is wrong about its own history. SixFourThree (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree

If you judge all journalists as simply "regurgitat[ing] press releases", then that throws into question the entire system of sourcing and referencing that is Wikipedia's foundation... Just a quick point. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It was more a point on distinguishing from journalists who take what's handed to them and those that do the independent research themselves. But regardless of which type we're dealing with, their articles are at best secondary sources to primary documentation. But if they're citing the "because they said so" conundrum I stated, then we're back at square one without any real proof. And without that proof, it would be an assumption these items belong in the same article. These two soccer clubs are the same in name only. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackbox77, there is a reason why verifiability is Wikipedia Policy. It exists precisely to take that question out of our hands. We are not journalists. It is not our job to interpret our sources but merely present them. If journalists are merely taking what is handed to them, that is not our problem, nor our place to contradict them. They have the right to perform original research into the subjects that they investigate, but that is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia. Our opinions and interpretations do not matter. Whether you agree with a source or not, does not matter. Only what is presented.unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 08:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But how do you define which journalists take what's handed to them and which do research? We're back at the original research problem again. One suggestion I would like to make is a sort of compromise, where the two pages are merged BUT it is made clear within that page that there is a different company in control now than during the 1970s/80s and that the first team did not play between 1985 and... well, now. Finally, I would like to suggest that this debate is adjourned until such time as more light is thrown on this subject from third-party sources. I'm sure all sides of this discussion will agree that it really isn't going anywhere. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article that states, "The Cosmos were the flagbearer of the United States' North American Soccer League but they folded in 1985 after the league's collapse. Kemsley bought the naming rights and has Pele on board as club president. It is clear from this article that it is NOT the same franchise, but that someone just bought the old logo. Therefore, the articles should NOT be merged. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/867893/eric-cantona-back-in-football-with-new-york-cosmos?cc=5901

First of all, you need to signature your comments. Second, the article stated that the club folded, but makes no distinction one way or the other as to whether the club is the same entity or not. It simply states that the club once folded, which noone is disputing here. Hardly an example which dictates the current status of this club. We understand that your opinion is that once an entity folds, it can never be reformed as the same entity, but what you don't seem to understand is that is not a universal constant. Precedent on this site has already determined that. Also besides your example, which is does little to further your contention, there are mainstream articles which plainly refer to the club as the same entity. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to make clear that in the event of this article being deleted, the backroom staff and so forth will be moved to the other Cosmos page; not deleted altogether. Just thought I'd mention it. All of my opinions are above, so I won't waste anybody's time by typing it all out again. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 11:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge - even if the two teams are legally the same entity, there is no requirement that they be merged. Just note that this team is the same legal entity as the old one. We have plenty of sports teams with separated articles when warranted, e.g., Montreal Expos, History of the Brooklyn Dodgers. And given the 25 year or so gap between the activity of the two teams, and lack of continuity in anything that anyone but a lawyer would care about, a separate article for each seems warranted. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems odd that you're so quick to dismiss a legal definition. The legal definition is the only thing that ensures our neutrality, bc to come up with our own independent definition is always going to be subjectively based and will not be unanimously received. The legal definition takes opinion out of the equation. I find it puzzling why you are so quick to dismiss what "a lawyer would care about". We're not writing a newspaper where the responsibility is to be concerned with what "anyone would care about", we're writing an encyclopaedic article. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 03:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"...we're writing an encyclopaedic article." Exactly. We are not writing a legal document. The vast majority of readers of an encyclopedia are interested in the Cosmos as a soccer team, not as a legal entity. As a soccer team, this is a very different entity than the old team, which played in a league that folded more than a quarter century ago. There is no need to confuse the issue by treating this as the same team as the old Cosmos. Even if the legal entity is the same. And I didn't see any reliable sources actually stating that it is. The closest I saw was "As the last manager of the fabled team, [Pinton] owns the rights to the Cosmos name." The rights to the team name are separate from its legal standing - an owner can transfer naming rights separately from the entity itself. So if we go by the legal argument to justify combining the articles, that needs better support (unless I missed something). But even if it is the same legal entity, the better solution would be to retain 2 articles, and have each of them note the continuity of the legal structure within each article, supported by reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There are still several flaws with that argument. First of all, we still include the final year of the Cosmos existence as part of the original continuity even though it took place outside of the NASL. Using the franchise system as a frame of reference, then a new article should have been started after they NASL folded, and not when they officially ceased soccer operations. Also people still neglect to take into account the representation of the Montreal Canadiens who existed for about 10 years before the NHL ever existed. Noone seems to feel that their article needs to be separated between the two leagues that they played in nor does anyone have a problem with representing both histories in the same article's infobox. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best compromise is what I've got at the moment: Separate articles which make clear of the links between the "old" and "new" Cosmos. Otherwise I can't see this argument ending anytime soon. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Looking through this long discussion about whether to merge this article with the one on the original team, I see arguments that fail to acknowledge a fundamental truth: teams in US sports leagues are not clubs in the European sense, they are franchises granted by the league within which they operate. Subsequently, the soccer camps run under the Cosmos name were not a case of a club not fielding a top-flight squad; the usage of those terms in that fashion are meaningless in the US sports context.

The camps were a completely separate entity that just used the name. They were not a continuation of the NASL franchise's operations; those operations ceased when the NASL, which granted the franchise in the first place, ceased to exist. Nor are the new owners of the trademarks reviving the old NASL franchise, as there's no such franchise to operate; they seek a new franchise in MLS, albeit one that would use an old name (And, as an MLS franchise, they technically wouldn't even own it; MLS's single-entity structure, where all teams are owned by the league, means that they would be operators only.)

This franchise model is also why teams move in US leagues, and don't in European leagues (Milton Keyes Dons, an ever contentious exception, notwithstanding). The movement of a team to a new city is the modification of the territorial rights that are part of the franchise to operate a team.

Now, I will acknowledge that the distinction is often over looked at lower levels of play, such as independent league baseball or lower minor leagues in hockey, where leagues merge and reorganize on occasion. But that doesn't change that these new owners of the Cosmos trademarks are pursuing the securing of a new franchise in a new league, not continuing operations persuant to the same franchise in the same league. oknazevad (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Somehow question

When will the New York Cosmos begin its activity at the USA national leagues?

Cumbas2010 08:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumbas2010 (talk • contribs)

Unknown. They may never, as the "club" is really just a potential ownership group that doesn't field any team's at this point. US leagues are not organized as a loose group of independent clubs, but as league-granted franchises. So if the new Cosmos don't wind up with a franchise, they won't play. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Good answer, but I'll just add some: The earliest any new team could potentially enter Major League Soccer would be 2013, and I don't think they're going to bother if they don't get into MLS. I wouldn't book the tickets to JFK just yet. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 14:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is necessary to add in the section stadium that almost surely the first MLS season of the Cosmos in 2013 will be played at Citi Field stadium. Thank you and compliments for this great page !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.114.154 (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Pics from Old Trafford

I don't know if it's necessary, but I have some pics I took at Paul Scholes' testimonial on 5th August that I'd be willing to upload to add to the article (as it's the new NYC first game). However, I've never uploaded a pic to wiki before (so have no idea on the various licences available), and I'm unsure if I can upload pics as an IP (I have a named account, just haven't used it for a few years). I'll be away from a PC for a couple of weeks, but if the pics are wanted, and someone is willing to help with the uploads, then I can look into adding them when I return.86.180.186.203 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put a message on your IP talk page. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Away Kit

Shouldn't the 'Blackout Kit' that debuted a few months ago be included as the Away kit?12.96.87.102 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. This team, for what it is, has only actually worn one kit in one game. To include any other kit at all would be drawing an unsupported conclusion. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the real away kit is green with white trim. The PDL team wears this and the organization has used it in some of their celebrity games. Surprised no one has included it in the article so far. --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The PDL team is a separate, though affiliated, team with its own article. And this organization has played only one celebrity game, where they wore white.

Please remember, this is not an actual, functional team, and may never be. Be wary of treating like a European club; that's not an applicable model for the US. Right now it's a trademark owner that sponsors a semi-pro team. That is all. oknazevad (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Suggestion

Because there is yet no real club and only those working behind the scenes to one day start a true club, might a better opening line be "The New York Cosmos are a proposed American soccer club based in New York City"? Much of this article has jumped the gun giving credence to this investment group implying they are a real sporting organization like any other team. I think it is important to highlight the fact this article is talking about an as-of-now proposed soccer club. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It now looks as if we jumped the gun as there has been little to no progress over the last few months. I'll change it now. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those were worthwhile edits. Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Any time. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

New York Cosmos (2010) → New York Cosmos – This page needs to be moved from "New York Cosmos (2010)" to "New York Cosmos" to accompany the move of "New York Cosmos" to "New York Cosmos (1971-1985)". However, because that move left "New York Cosmos" as a redirect to "New York Cosmos (1971-1985)", this cannot be completed without the help of an administrator. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does this page have to be moved, if the other page was moved? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, put the old Cosmos and the Cosmos articles into one. It's the same business and it's the same story. Without the old one, the new one wouldn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.226.85 (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. We shouldn't move it yet, not until most of the links pointing to the disambiguation page have been edited to point to the right place. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as the new team (which does seem to finally actually exist!) is not yet clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the internationally known "New York Cosmos" name. Actually, I don't think the article on the historical team should have been moved already. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it should be moved back per WP:BRD. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Oknazevad said, this new team is clearly not the primary topic for the name, and I'm surprised that someone would have moved the article about the world-renowned historical team – the very clear primary topic – without discussion as if it were an uncontroversial move. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wouldn't the team that currently exists be the primary topic? The phoenix club for the New York Cosmos ought to be treated the same way as the phoenix clubs for the San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, Montreal Impact, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and Tampa Bay Rowdies. -- Fifty7

No. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says (highlighting original):

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

The original New York Cosmos was famous worldwide; most people apart from US soccer fans probably don't know there is a current club using that name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. It raises an interesting question. For example, the old NASL is surely the more notable and more widely known, and yet we have moved it from "North American Soccer League" to "North American Soccer League (1968–1984)," and moved "North American Soccer League (2011-)" to "North American Soccer League" because it is the entity currently in existence. What is proper in these situations? Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my last comment. -- Fifty7 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For the reasons listed above. I would also support the movement of the current NASL to North American Soccer League (2011-), but that is a discussion for another place and time. KitHutch (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe instead of deciding whether to support or oppose now, we should debate if the new Cosmos will ever be considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm sure there are those that think they are now, those that think they will/should never be, and those that are undecided. For those that "oppose for now," if not now then when? It may be better to decide if there will be a point in the future when this team will definitively deserve the main article title. Maybe when they start to sign players? Date of their first game? Enter MLS? Last longer than the original Cosmos? --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're asking us to predict the future. That's not plausible or reasonable. It may become the primary topic, it may not, who knows. Heck, if we follow the pattern, if this team's ownership does get an MLS franchise, that franchise would get it's own separate article. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, I'm of the opinion the current pattern needs to be seriously examined. Anyway - no, I'm not saying predict the future. I'm just suggesting we all discuss some general criteria that would establish what it would take for this article to become the primary topic. If you oppose for now, what would it take for you to support later? It'd be a worthwhile discussion. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

True, I think it does need to be examined, if only to make clearer to everyone unfamiliar with the nature of North American leagues that teams only exist because a league grants them a franchise, and that European models don't apply fully. That's another discussion, though. In this specific case, though, I cannot foresee any condition where this minor league franchise could ever be the primary topic, as a subsequent MLS franchise with the same ownership would still. E a different, third team to use the name, and it would take MLS membership to be anywhere near primary topic in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with your last point - MLS membership at the very least. But as far as our self-made rule of expansion teams always getting their own article, I'm not so sure. Throughout the history of all sports, preexisting clubs have been granted franchises in new leagues and not be considered a totally new club. It just needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. (And you're right, that's a discussion for another time). --Blackbox77 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How were the Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders handled? The Tampa Bay Rowdies are in the NASL and have the primary title. Fans or potential fans of the New Cosmos will be looking for info on the team and wikipedia will be directing them to the page of a defunct team. All previous success aside the Old Cosmos failed and there is a new team with the brand. I can't believe this is even an argument.Eric Ando (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These matters are handled individually. Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders were a continuation of the same basic organization although they were separately created legal units. The difference with the Cosmos is that the name is still strongly connected to the 70-80s team. Whether it failed or not is irrelevant, the standard is "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Although I hope it succeeds, this is one of a long line of "resurrections" of the Cosmos brand and there is no guarantee it will last or have any long-term significance. Bloodzeed (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The NASL team was one of the most famous American soccer teams of all time. It will take quite a lot for the current team to usurp that. – PeeJay 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the original NY Cosmos is far more famous than this new club. GiantSnowman 10:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think fame is the issue. The 1971-1985 team were the New York Cosmos, the 2010- organization and team are the New York Cosmos. -- Fifty7 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the issue - notability is not temporary. GiantSnowman 09:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The original NASL team is still much more well known for now - in fact New York Cosmos should contain the New York Cosmos (1971–1985) content with a {{for}} hatnote pointing to this page. Bloodzeed (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You cant mingle a historic significant team with one of recent. Keep separate.--PILTS (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding the continuity of the Cosmos

I just sat here and read the whole page of talk about whether or not the NY Cosmos are the same. I don't think you are ever going to get a 100% consensus on the subject. This is one that could go all the way to the supreme court. Whether or not there are 2 pages or 1 page for the NY Cosmos doesn't really matter. What matters is that the information on any and all pages is verifiable and/or correct. If you have two pages, each one should reference the other. If you have one, all the information should be included. --I did have one thought though. Wasn't there a reference to the Cosmos "folding" _after_ the first NASL went out of business? If there was no league to play in, why keep a team? The leading opponent to the "team continuity" theory (was it blackbox?) stated that you cant have a soccer/football club without a team and staff. Is a club a club without a league or opponents? And if you are a club with no league or opponents, should you keep paying a team and staff? It seems to me, without a league to play in, the only way to keep the club alive and "simmering on the back burner" for the future is to train new players with the hopes of entering a new league. Hence the continuing soccer camps. Although a point may be made that with the inception of MLS the Cosmos should have been "served off the back burner" -(to keep the analogy going)- the financial structure of the MLS franchise is as such that the Cosmos would no longer exist as an entity. In addition it takes time to re-coup financing to bring the club back to life. But be that as it may..I'm off my point.-- Just keep providing the excellent pages that you have, and don't worry so much about the new and the old. (unless you're talking about an antique.) Those of us who remember the Cosmos from the 70's and are living through their re-birth just wanna see information about the NY Cosmos. You'll never be able to tell a true fan he is wrong about something, and as any true fan knows, the opposing opinion doesn't matter! Lol! -- BTW - in case you haven't guessed. I think they are the same club, founded in 1970. According to their time line they joined NASL in Dec 1970. The name Cosmos was picked from a fan competition in Feb 1971. Here's the conundrum... which came first the chicken or the egg? the club or the name? If the club became a member of the NASL in Dec 1970 were they a club before they were named? or did they only become a club when they were named NY Cosmos in Feb of 1971? So is their Founding date Dec 1970 or Feb 1971? Lol! -- Anyway, thanks for doing your jobs and keep up the good work! 184.153.208.211 (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

References

At the end of the day

At the end of the day, they're the same club, but a different team. Yes they have spent some time "away" but they are still the same club so the two pages should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyguysimjakob (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your "it's a given" view of the subject matter is not universal acknowledged and ignores how Wikipedia deals with verifiable content. --Blackbox77 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to this again

I realize that this has been discussed multiple times, but I'll start a new discussion for the sake of those who missed the earlier ones and want to add value to the debate now, or who want to attempt to change consensus.

The first thing to recognize is that MLS and NASL are different leagues. In MLS, teams are actually franchises of the MLS brand. The league holds all of the player contracts as well. I'm not sure what the legal status of ownership or player contracts are in NASL, but if the initial propositions made by Vancouver, Montreal and the other teams were carried forward, each team may be its own legal entity. That may lend credibility to the argument that the current Cosmos are an extension to the original Cosmos as some legal rights were purchased. Without knowing what those rights are and what rights are controlled by the league, we can't compare.

And the argument about teams moving up to MLS, that may be an extension of this argument. Vancouver Whitecaps continue to exist as a separate entity outside of MLS, so if that league fails, the club should be able to continue to operate at some level, however, the senior mens team is a franchise of MLS and legally a separate entity that continues to have ties with the other legal entity. I don't know if that's the case with the current Cosmos.

However, until that is resolved, I don't think there is any expectation that the two articles or associated templates should be at all linked. Doing so is a bad idea and will confuse readers. Discussions of history should commence with the formation of the group in 2009 and not in the 1970s. Mentioning that rights were transferred or purchased is fine, but stating or even suggesting that the current team shares its history with that earlier team is simply wrong. Taking queues from Template:Seattle Sounders FC, Template:Portland Timbers and Template:Vancouver Whitecaps, keep the histories clearly separated and clearly define the current entity from the previous ones.

Also, if editors would like to argue that soccer fans from other cities should not be discussing or even editing this article, don't bother. It won't fly. I likely attended New York Cosmos matches before you were born and I was around when this current NASL was born and read a lot about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the current edit accurately portrays the distinction between franchises while satisfying the club lineage situation, as do the current edits of the templates:

• New York Cosmos (2010): (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Cosmos_%282010%29&oldid=571720227)
• Main navbox: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Cosmos&oldid=571665997)
• Managers template: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Cosmos_managers&oldid=571664328)
• Squad template: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Cosmos_squad&oldid=570937950)

-- Fifty7 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe adding another group to the managers to keep the new club visually separate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, I'll look into how to do it tomorrow if it hasn't been done by another editor by then. -- Fifty7 (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York Cosmos (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111112041550/http://www.bigapplesoccer.com:80/sections/youth2.php?article_id=29096 to http://www.bigapplesoccer.com/sections/youth2.php?article_id=29096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

MLS expansion section not accurate/potentially misleading

The article as it stands gives the impression that the Cosmos wanted to join the MLS, but that inability to secure a new stadium prevented this. From what I recall, they wanted a new stadium, and MLS tried their best to stop this.

Dbaxter42 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Either statement should be supported with a reference. If you can find some that take it either way, make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything that can be sourced should be included, anything not sourced should wait. To that end, why was this removed?

Within weeks of purchasing the club, new chairman and CEO Seamus O'Brien had a series of meetings with MLS Commissioner Don Garber about joining Major League Soccer. Garber was eager to add the Cosmos to MLS, but O'Brien balked at the league's $100M expansion fee and single-entity structure, and decided not to apply.

the source speaking is Dave Martinez, the editor of Empire of Soccer and a reliable source. I don't see any reason why his reporting shouldn't be included. SixFourThree (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

The reference is bad. The URL is not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! That's embarrassing. Thanks! SixFourThree (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

References

Original Club's Dates in Infobox

My edit was reverted, but I think it causes more confusion to have the original club's founding date in the Infobox, even in a footnote. Stating that this club was founded on "August 1, 2010" makes it clear it's not the same as the old club, and then footnoting it with the old club's date seems to muddy those waters. I think it's clearer without - does anyone agree? SixFourThree (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

The primary issue is that some people think it's a continuation of the old and the note, "Original NASL team founded December 10, 1970", is designed to appease them. If you want to clarify the note feel free to, but removing it will cause problems with those editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Are those guys still around? I was one of those who advocated combining the two pages way back in the day, but I've long since come around. SixFourThree (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)SixFourThree

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New York Cosmos (2010). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121005120244/http://www.thisisamericansoccer.com/news/the-cosmos-for-free/ to http://www.thisisamericansoccer.com/news/the-cosmos-for-free/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203072624/http://gothamist.com/2013/10/27/cosmos_clinch_nasl_fall_season_titl.php to http://gothamist.com/2013/10/27/cosmos_clinch_nasl_fall_season_titl.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021205306/http://www.labandadelcosmos.com/ to http://www.labandadelcosmos.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912074021/http://nycosmos.com/news/history-borough-boys to http://nycosmos.com/news/history-borough-boys
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227102446/http://web.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130801&content_id=55497674&vkey=2 to http://web.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130801&content_id=55497674&vkey=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319203349/http://latinosports.com/featured/borough-boys-sc-host-successful-q-a-with-the-new-york-cosmos-front-office.html to http://latinosports.com/featured/borough-boys-sc-host-successful-q-a-with-the-new-york-cosmos-front-office.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

New League

According to the source cited[2], the Cosmos have not joined the NPSL. Rather, they and ten other clubs "have launched a new league in association with the NPSL". Interestingly, the name of the new league was not included in that announcement. It was previously rumored that the league would be called "NPSL Pro", but the league's (and teams') press releases don't specify anything at all, either a new name or playing under the same name as the current semi-pro league. I am editing the article to reflect that, and we can fill in the new league's name once it is announced. SixFourThree (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree

Yes, clumsy wording by me. I think I did better at Miami FC#History and New York Cosmos (2010)#2016–present: Financial struggles and sale. It was announced that the 2019 competition will be called "NPSL Founders Cup" (unless that has changed), but no word what it will be called in 2020. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Player roster

We are currently showing all the Cosmos B players as though they were on the first team roster. I'm going to remove them for now, as @Oknazevad: did before (which was reverted anonymously and without either comment or discussion). The first team remains on hiatus until the Founders' Cup starts later this season, at which point the roster should be returned to this page with whatever players make an appearance. We don't list the B team's kit supplier or shirt sponsor here, we shouldn't list the roster either. SixFourThree (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)SixFourThree

Elimination of individual player stats from "Team Records" section

The Cosmos player stats within Team Records (top goalscorer, top assists, most appearances) have not been updated since mid-season 2016. To update these now would be a large task since I can't find a definitive ranking from the Cosmos website or anywhere else online. This out of date information should be removed, Year-by Year results could be moved to a a 2nd sub-heading in History, and Club Captains could be updated and moved to the Players and staff section. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to remove them then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Year-by-year / Cosmos vs Cosmos B

For a few years, this page had a data mix between the first team New York Cosmos and New York Cosmos B. Once the NASL ceased play / cancelled the 2018 season, the Cosmos themselves made public statements saying they would "field a team" in the NPSL. This was different from the Jacksonville Armada, who moved their entire first team into the NPSL and replaced the U-23 team it had there. I would have also made this case for the seperation of Miami FC & Miami FC 2, however when MF2 reverted back to the first team in 2019 that sort of cemented that they were, in fact, the same entity. In this case though, New York Cosmos B was already a thing before the NASL collapsed and it remained a thing officially and records state as much for both the league and competitions such as the U.S. Open Cup (which list the team as New York Cosmos B).

For history and clarity sake, the year-by-year section should not track the information of New York Cosmos B during the 2018 and 2019 seasons. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References