Skip to content

The New England Patriots Have Quietly Added a Secondary Logo

Looks like Flying Elvis is being deployed in a new way.

Although nothing has been officially announced, the there have been hints for a while now that the Patriots have a new secondary logo. The first glimpse of it, at least that I’m aware of, came in late April, when team exec Eliot Wolf was discussing the draft with an unfamiliar graphic partially visible behind him:

Later, on May 3, the team tweeted several photos of third-round draft pick Caedan Wallace. One of the photos showed Wallace in the team’s offices, with a wall-mounted video screen featuring a partial version of the logo that had appeared behind Wolf:

Later that same day, former Pats player Brandon Spikes tweeted some photos he’d taken during a visit to Pats HQ, one of which appeared to be of a conference room with the new logo on wall:

And now, finally, the logo has appeared as part of an official team communiqué, as you can see in this tweet that the team posted this morning:

So this logo is clearly part of the team’s visual program now.

Let’s take a closer look:

It remains to be seen how they’ll use this logo over the long term, but I’m hoping it doesn’t get much exposure, because I don’t care for it at all. Here’s why:

  • The “NE” feels too big and clunky as it bumps into the edges of the inner circle.
  • Flying Elvis’s integration into the “NE” feels awkward and forced.
  • Look how the team’s name is shown: The geographic locator, “New England,” is centered across the top, while the name, “Patriots,” is off-center on the bottom. Yes, I realize the full span of bottom type is centered, but that basically gives “Est. 1960” equal status with the team’s name, which I don’t like at all. The full name should be the most prominent thing, with “Est. 1960” as more of a footnote, a little bonus.
  • The two white arcs on the sides feel like placeholders, almost like they planned to put something more substantial there but never got around to it.

On the plus side: No “storytelling”!

(My thanks to our own Anthony Emerson for alerting me to today’s Pats tweet with the logo.)

Comments (43)

    One thing that has bothered me with the Patriots branding over the years is the “Boston Patriots” were established in 1960, whereas they did not begin use of “New England” until 1971. I know this opens a can of worms for franchises that have relocated over the years, like with the Atlanta baseball team, their “Est.” could be tied to Boston, Milwaukee, or Atlanta, but it’s always bothered me how the establishment date of most franchises doesnt match when they started using that geographic location, name, or logo. Am I alone here?

    I’m guessing you are alone on this.

    Unless it’s one of those situations like the Ravens that intentionally disavowed their history, then that history is still there.

    Yeah you’re alone on this one. There are special cases out there (Browns) but this isn’t one of them.

    It does bug me that the AFL teams trace their continuity to 1960 but the WHA teams generally trace it to the merger. But that’s not the Patriots problem.

    Why wouldn’t the AFL history be included? It was a merger, not a takeover. The NFL and AFL handled this perfectly, unlike the NBA with the ABA.

    Charlotte Hornets is easily the most confusing, was the team that started in 2004 established in 2005 or 1988 when the franchise history started?

    It’s the same team and geographical area. I guess they could have kept the Boston name, like many other NFL teams that no longer rescind in the city limits that they are named after, but I don’t see the issue with this.

    Yep. It’s like the Philadelphia then San Francisco then Golden State Warriors. Same team.

    Agreeing with Paul on the logo, the roundel just looks like there’s too much happening at once, and the “NE” feels like it’s too big for the space. For me it looks worse when it’s reduced in size, hard to discern what is negative space and what is the NE/flying Elvis

    Took me a really long time to find the “E”. Between sharing the upright of the letter with the “N”, having Elvis bite huge chunks out of it, and having the circle run into and also clip the ends of it, its baffling. Also, they appear to have a blueon white version and a white on blue version based on all the photos.

    If I relax my eyes, I kind of see the Texans cow in the negative space instead of Flying Elvis’s face

    A little more simplicity would have helped. Equalise the character spacing, taking “Est. 1960” out of the circle. Lose the red circle and the white arcs to let NE be a little bigger, but fully contained. I kinda like the way Pat’s tricorn hat is invoked by the slope of the N though, that’s clever.

    TL:DR; it has good in it, but it’s not good.

    I can picture the storytelling that might have gone with it:

    New England across the top: this signifies the area in which a celebrated American football team is located and represents it’s most dedicated fans, Patriotic in their following and beliefs.

    Patriots: New England is an area that is synonymous with the birth of the United States as an independent country, just as independent and Patriotic as our fans are in their following and beliefs.

    Flying Elvis, 1960 and the Hidden E: Elvis, for a while, was hidden in military service, being as Patriotic as the fans are in New England. In 1960, he returned from the military service, ready to embark on a new phase of his life (just as New England experienced in 1960 when the Patriotic fans were about to embark on a new phase of football)

    Round Symbol: the entire symbol is round, exemplifying the well-rounded nature of New England’s Patriotic fans.

    What do you think?

    I’ve hated the Elvis logo since its inception [Est. 1993], and to me the Pats will always be a red and white team, but this new logo is the first time I’ve seen it used where I can tolerate it. Is it perfect? Hardly. But it hardly stinks, either, picked nits aside, and it’s certainly better than how the Ravens have crammed a B in their bird — especially how it looks on the left side of the helmet.

    While I don’t necessarily HATE the new logo, it just comes across as one of the “WHY” logos of all-time. It really feels like the pinnacle of a logo that bears the question “WHY does this exist?” Not “WHY” in the agonizing sense, but “WHY” in the “what is its purpose, its function?”

    No thanks.

    I kind of like that NE logo.

    That being said, today is the debut of a serape-themed Friday jersey for the Cleburne Railroaders of the American Association. From the video and stills, it’s pretty wild.

    I don’t know, it seems like a perfectly fine logo.

    For a soccer team. USL Championship or League One, it’d be like a B, B-plus logo.

    If they had put the face of Elvis just a little lower, so the white background and the face weren’t connected, it would have been better

    This feels like if the Pats were somehow less popular than the Revolution and the NFL one needed to ape the MLS one for clout. Which is, uh, not the case

    How ’bout just bring back Pat Patriot done the end

    I don’t quite think this is terrible, but not great either. I really prefer the NE secondary logo from the early-mid 2000s.

    The negative space in the E jumps out more than the E itself.

    I wholeheartedly agree on this. It almost seems like they wanted to make a “P” out the negative space, but couldn’t figure out how to put in the vertical stroke.

    Some logos can go to a negative or reverse color, like the Maple Leafs or Lightning logo is blue on white or white on blue. Some logos don’t go reverse, like the Flyers logo is black with orange circle on white, but stays black with orange circle with white outline on black or on orange.

    This logo should always be white face on navy NE. Just look at that logo on the Draft Class Jersey Numbers tweet. You can’t make out what that logo is.

    Worst example of this is the logo on the USC Trojans’ helmets. It looks like a bad high school shirt with a white-feathered cardinal on red.

    Whatever this cost them was 100% too much. Unfathomably bad. Welcome to the Jonathan Kraft era, fellow Pats fans.

    I guess I am in the minority because I actually like this secondary logo. True its not perfect, I think they should of centered the wording of ”New England Patriots EST 1960″ a little better and i think the flying Elvis inside the N should have been slightly lower and centered, but I still think its pretty cool. The real question is, will this be worn as a patch on their game jerseys??

    I’m with ya. I like this logo, and I’m certainly not worried that it’s going to take over as the helmet logo or anything. How often does any nfl team even use their secondary logo? But beware going against the grain around here, especially if it means liking something new.

    This looks like an attempt at a logo that “works” in the round format of social media. Just because the space allotted for a logo is a circle, doesn’t mean every logo has to be a circle. This logo is unnecessary, stupid, and ugly. It stinks. Grade: F

    My thought: Elvis does not fit into the avatar space on social media. But what a horrible solution the Patriots came up with. The NE monogram they had 20 years earlier would fit into the avatar space.

    I think I would look more favorably on this logo, if the black portions were a dark blue.

    Then look favorably upon it, you shall, as there isn’t a speck of black in this logo.

    I guess its my eyes, but the black is very dark blue, but it too dark IMHO

    This is a good logo. And it’s the secondary logo, which means it’s okay for it to be a bit out there. But, really, it’s not that bad and in fact I find it interesting. You want a crappy logo? Pat Patriot was a crappy logo. This, on the other hand, is pretty cool.

Comments are closed.