MLS is happily stockpiling shiny new clubs. From southwestern Ohio to Southern California to shivery Minnesota, sparkling stadiums arise behind strong local support. Expansion teams sprout at a breakneck pace, thriving and contending for championships.

Naturally, these clubs make the league look good. Atlanta United, the grandest success story, is the model teams wish to follow. But prosperous new clubs widen a troubling gap between those still lingering below, a bottom tier where older clubs disproportionately reside. Teams from the 1990s are the ones with empty seats and old stadiums, a sharp contrast to the FC Cincinnatis and LAFCs. And now, the Chicago Fire, flailing under the weight of serious on-field struggles and plummeting attendance, reportedly seek drastic changes.

The Fire are considering a move to downtown football stadium Soldier Field and could change their name, with reports indicating they could switch to “Chicago City Football Club” as part of a rebrand.

Led by Joe Mansueto, who bought a 49 percent share of the Fire recently, Chicago decided they needed to present a different version of themselves to a disinterested public. Their current field, formerly Toyota Park, now SeatGeek Stadium, is inconveniently located in Bridgeview, 15 miles from downtown. 

They are only one of multiple disturbing cases. The New England Revolution still play at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium and draw poorly, with a mismatched roster and indifferent owners. The Columbus Crew, though saved, are reeling from the setback of playing a full season as a dead duck team. FC Dallas and the Colorado Rapids remain low in the league attendance rankings. D.C. United, though once an example of this phenomenon, are now the exception to the rule.

Thus, one cannot fault the Fire for desiring drastic off-field action. They draw just 11,029 fans per game, ranking last in the league early in the season, and perceptions of the team are either negative—driven by a long stretch of losing and inexplicably bad relationships with supporters groups—or nonexistent. 

Chicago seem to worry that people see the “Fire” moniker as a symbol of a less successful past, as unprofessional, or as minor league. Perhaps they wanted to distance themselves from the tragic Great Chicago Fire of 1871, or from the popular NBC TV show that beats the soccer team on Google’s search algorithms.

But “Chicago City FC” is yet another Euro knockoff, a stripping of whatever identity the club has had since their 1998 founding. A move to Soldier Field, with a capacity of 61,500 designed for Bears games, would be a regression to MLS’s fledgling past. The Fire want big changes, but they are fooling themselves if they think a switch to a huge football stadium and a new, dreary name will generate fan interest.

It will be a sad sight when the Fire play their first game at Soldier Field in 2020 and draw a pleasing 17,000 fans, only to see 40,000 empty seats and end up ridiculed again for subpar attendance. Back in the 90s, before MLS built soccer-specific stadiums, sights of meager crowds at gargantuan football complexes negatively influenced perceptions of the league. Chicago seem content for a return to that in exchange for ditching Bridgeview.

What they don’t realize, however, is that their attendance rises and falls with the team’s success. In 2017, when they played good soccer for a stretch and made the playoffs, they drew 17,000 people, despite coming off two straight seasons of settling in last place. They fell to 14,806 last season, finishing 10th in the standings. If they put a good product on the field, they’re not last in the league in attendance. 

That is not the case for other teams in similar positions; the Crew have been good for years and still hover around 12,000, and the Dynamo continue to have trouble drawing fans despite a downtown stadium and seemingly favorable market. The Fire would have better crowds if they won. General manager Nelson Rodriguez is a far bigger problem than their name and logo.

These grand changes are a desperate attempt at a trend reversal. Chicago saw D.C. United’s ascent since the construction of Audi Field and decided they would take their own shot at conjuring success. Chicago won’t come close to D.C.’s prosperity with a move to a massive stadium and an unpopular name change.

MLS could continue to see desperation out of its older clubs as they struggle to keep up with newer, fresher teams. On-field success and competent management haven’t helped Columbus or FC Dallas. The league has to find a way to prop up its historic teams and avoid ill-fated heaves at relevance.

Harrison Hamm is a sportswriter who covers American soccer and MLS for FloFC. He also covers sports for FanSided and The Comeback, and has freelanced for the Washington Post.