Is this a swastika-style logo?

[iamtheblues]

There is a bit of a to-do on Twitter over the publication of a logo under the heading "New Order" on the cover of a Manchester United email sent to club supporters.
I attach a rough approximation of the logo here. The folks at Manchester United have issued an "unreserved apology" for reasons, that are, as far as I am concerned, mystifying.
It is said that this is a "Nazi-style" logo and I was wondering if the good people at TG agree that this is offensive, or is it drawing attention to a non-existent problem?
The logo represents the initials MUFC - Manchester United Football Club and that seems to be all there is to it. I don't see anything sinister about the design, but passions are running high in football circles.
I would be keen to know how people here feel about this, and if any logo designers feel that they ought to be second guessing potential "offensive" designs that they may be innocently creating that are going to result in prosecution for committing a perceived hate crime. The newspaper article is here.
Bob.

[Rik]

Everyone will see different things, when interpretations is needed.

But, even after reading what you say, I still don't see a 'swastika' resemblance?
Maybe, that's just me.
Mind you, I'm only looking at the logo, and not the article and the heading 'New Order' etc...
Which is where, if you start putting things together, then maybe it starts to become offensive.

[pauland]

It's not a Swastica, but it has all the hallmarks of one.

The colours are red and black.
Angular design, straight edges arranged in directions reminiscent of a Swastica.

In many ways, whether or not it's a close resemblance to a Nazi emblem isn't the actual issue.

The real issue is whether people look at it and make that association, intended or not.

If I was on the far right (I'm not) and wanted a proxy Swastica that wasn't the real deal but would work for those 'in the know', then it might fit the bill nicely.

I think it's a poor logo for a modern club where inclusiveness and family values should be promoted, not something that could be used as a banner for thugs.

Apologies if I sat on the fence about this one..

[I haven't read the article]

[xtom]

Yeah the isolated logo is not as bad but the image in the article does look like some kind of nazi poster at a glance and you could be pretty much guaranteed that fans of opposing teams would go to town on it, so definitely not good for man u supporters.

[pauland]

Right, now I've read the article and the combination of the images used with this Logo, plus the headline 'New Order' really make it totally inappropriate.

If you substituted the logo for a Nazi one, the pictures and headline would fit in with Nazi propoganda from WWII. The only thing you'd need to do is change the football shirts and substitute one of the images..

It's outrageous and I completely understand the furore.

[wizard509]

I have not read the article and do not make the connection. To me it does not resemble a swastika. Someone is always going to find fault with anything, seems to me if someone posted an image of a bunch of kids having a weenie roast someone somewhere would take offense.

[Cloud]

It is impossible to say whether or not if I had seen just the logo by itself I would associate it with the nazi swastika but combined with the colours, the positioning of the elements etc it is certainly similar. But if you take it with the image and as Paul points out the wording then the connection is there 100%, I do not want to go into politics but such images are regularly used on the continent by far right groups.

From a design point of view I also agree that it is a badly designed logo, especially if you bear in mind the global fans of the club. Any company which wishes to trade internationally has to look very closely into product names, logos etc. to make sure that there is no alternative meaning.

[Cloud]

Because the swastika is rightly outlawed in europe a lot of the far right groups use stylised versions such as the far right russian parties which used the attached symbol, though the mufc one is not as blatant it shows how it can be disguised, and that to me makes the symbol used in the emails even more disturbing.

[gwpriester]

Bob - As Paul notes, it has the same qualities as a swastika and probably intentionally.

Sketch - This takes the swastika one step further, if such a thing is possible.

Of course the swastika was used by the Native Americans, usually reversed, and has been used well before Hitler adopted it as the logo for the Nazi party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

The logo is repellent for what it stood (stands) for, but as far as logos go, it is one of the most recognizable logos in the history of logos. It is simple, powerful and spare.

[angelize]

I'm looking at the logo and the flyer as a whole and there is no doubt in my mind that as a whole the connection is there 100% I can't see how it could have been done accidentally. Even here half a world away school children are taught the history of WWI and WWII. It is a basic part of the history curriculum that all schools in Canada must teach, and I think that it's quite possibly the same in the US. There is no way the designer(s) can plead ignorance.

If the logo was presented to me on it's own I can't say for sure if the swastika connection would have stood out right away but like others have said here it's a bad design, and the colours don't help.

To answer the question about designing logos and being wary of potential offensive designs, I always try to keep things like that in mind. Here in BC we are a melting pot of many different cultures. So there is always an element of making sure a design could not be potentially offensive. For example when discussing a new logo for an art supply/framing store one design idea of a face with paint smears was discarded because of a possible First Nations connection with the painted face.

Perhaps just for an exercise and something lighter would anyone like to participate in a thread to create a good logo for this team?