2015-16 Soccer Kits and News

[GeauxColonels]

I'd prefer Spurs stay with Under Armour, personally. They really haven't made a bad kit compared so the other manufacturers over the same period.

[Gothamite]

Nike is just bland and have run out of ideas when it comes to kit making. Probably why they are losing so many contracts to Adidas and Puma at the moment.

You don't actually believe this do you?

Kit deals just go to the highest bidder generally.

Bingo.

Nike had a good run, but Adidas and Puma just outbid them for those high-profile contracts. When those are up, maybe Nike will outbid them and reclaim them.

[marble21]

I'd prefer Spurs stay with Under Armour, personally. They really haven't made a bad kit compared so the other manufacturers over the same period.

I think the only two that haven't been good are the following:

To only have 2 bad kits out of 9 isn't a bad return.

It will depend on money again though and whether Under Armour want to try and compete with some of the other big deals that have been made recently. Obviously, they aren't gonna match the likes of the Manchester United deal but there is definitely room for improvement on what they are currently paying now. It wouldn't be a huge shock if another company tried to outbid them and we all know what Daniel Levy is like when it comes to making the most money out of a situation.

[GeauxColonels]

I'd prefer Spurs stay with Under Armour, personally. They really haven't made a bad kit compared so the other manufacturers over the same period.

I think the only two that haven't been good are the following:

To only have 2 bad kits out of 9 isn't a bad return.

It will depend on money again though and whether Under Armour want to try and compete with some of the other big deals that have been made recently. Obviously, they aren't gonna match the likes of the Manchester United deal but there is definitely room for improvement on what they are currently paying now. It wouldn't be a huge shock if another company tried to outbid them and we all know what Daniel Levy is like when it comes to making the most money out of a situation.

Personally, I don't think either of those are bad kits. I actually bought the halved design. That's probably my least favorite of the whites they've done....but i still don't think it's bad compared to many other kits out there.

[MJWalker45]

Nike is just bland and have run out of ideas when it comes to kit making. Probably why they are losing so many contracts to Adidas and Puma at the moment.

You don't actually believe this do you?

Kit deals just go to the highest bidder generally.

The only reason Manchester United went to adidas is they paid $15 million GBP more than Nike was willing to pay. Made United's decision pretty easy.

I'd prefer Spurs stay with Under Armour, personally. They really haven't made a bad kit compared so the other manufacturers over the same period.

I think the only two that haven't been good are the following:

To only have 2 bad kits out of 9 isn't a bad return.

It will depend on money again though and whether Under Armour want to try and compete with some of the other big deals that have been made recently. Obviously, they aren't gonna match the likes of the Manchester United deal but there is definitely room for improvement on what they are currently paying now. It wouldn't be a huge shock if another company tried to outbid them and we all know what Daniel Levy is like when it comes to making the most money out of a situation.

Personally, I don't think either of those are bad kits. I actually bought the halved design. That's probably my least favorite of the whites they've done....but i still don't think it's bad compared to many other kits out there.

I actually like that white kit more than last year's. I really haven't hated an Under Armour kit for Spurs yet.

[IanC]

You don't actually believe this do you?

Kit deals just go to the highest bidder generally.

Not in all cases they go to the highest bidder. Where is your proof it does? Or are you just basing that on the United deal?

I think the only two that haven't been good are the following:

The half kit went down a storm with most Spurs fans and gave it a big thumbs up. As for the home when it came out I was meh but after purchasing it and looking at the detail it is probably a favourite of mine now. I just hope Under armour start producing for more teams. They have done very well so far.

And this is the cup final print I have.

[marble21]

Kit deals just go to the highest bidder generally.

Not in all cases they go to the highest bidder. Where is your proof it does? Or are you just basing that on the United deal?

I am not even going to try and bring common sense to this discussion.

[IanC]

Kit deals just go to the highest bidder generally.

Not in all cases they go to the highest bidder. Where is your proof it does? Or are you just basing that on the United deal?

I am not even going to try and bring common sense to this discussion

Don't try to insult someones intelligence with that line. I asked a question to you after I posted a legitimate opinion which you took umbridge to.

[Gothamite]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

[UnclearInitial]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

I know that both Roma and Valencia have shredded contracts with Kappa and Joma, respectively, to sign inferior contracts with Nike and Adidas. But that was more an "increased exposure" kind of move, so in the long run they think that what they lost will be gained in more merch/new fans. Roma in 2007 all but signed with Legea, but the fan reaction to the kit designs/the desire of a higher profile brought them to sign with Kappa

[eww7633]

The Sounders are wearing the same 3rds as last year, the pitch black kit. They also confirmed on Twitter that they'll have new primary and secondary kits too.

Did they even wear their "secondaries" at all last year? The less black ones.

I believe I watched or attended every match, and my gut says no.

[IanC]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

Yes I do, Spurs. Puma wanted to renew the contract and were offering a considerable amount of money more than Under Armour. Enic wanted a more increased exposure with the Amercan market and went with the Under Armour offer. Considering that Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy went for the lower offer is a suprise as they are known for trying to make profit but in the long run see it more profitable to go with an American market kit supplier. We already have a feeder agreement with San Jose Earthquakes and will be touring again in the States next pre season.

This information is taken from an insider in the club who also posts on the Spurs Community forum.

As someone was rude earlier by trying to belittle my opinion and myself by stating he was above me with common sense I am glad to hand over this snippet of information.

[guest23]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

Yes I do, Spurs. Puma wanted to renew the contract and were offering a considerable amount of money more than Under Armour. Enic wanted a more increased exposure with the Amercan market and went with the Under Armour offer. Considering that Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy went for the lower offer is a suprise as they are known for trying to make profit but in the long run see it more profitable to go with an American market kit supplier. We already have a feeder agreement with San Jose Earthquakes and will be touring again in the States next pre season.

This information is taken from an insider in the club who also posts on the Spurs Community forum.

As someone was rude earlier by trying to belittle my opinion and myself by stating he was above me with common sense I am glad to hand over this snippet of information.

it honestly depends on the structure of the deal and the financial health of the club. In the example you're mentioning you're talking about a strategy where a club is looking to invest long term to grow their brand with the hope that the increased exposure grows revenues on the back end (revenue sharing/bonuses) or in the future (more exposure = increased sales over time). With the case of MU you have a club that may be strapped for cash in the near term so they are obviously going either with the highest bidder or the one that's going to give them cash up front.

In both scenarios revenue and profit are the primary concern. Design and product quality play a distant second place to the bottom line with deals of this size.

[MJWalker45]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

The German Football Federation turned down a bigger offer from Nike to stay with adidas. Some club teams and several board members were upset because of it. It's still pretty rare for a team to turn down more money, but not unheard of.

[guest23]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

The German Football Federation turned down a bigger offer from Nike to stay with adidas. Some club teams and several board members were upset because of it.

It happens but is typically the minority. Sometimes inferior financial deals are selected based on prior relationships. I've seen it 1st hand.

[MJWalker45]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

Yes I do, Spurs. Puma wanted to renew the contract and were offering a considerable amount of money more than Under Armour. Enic wanted a more increased exposure with the Amercan market and went with the Under Armour offer. Considering that Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy went for the lower offer is a suprise as they are known for trying to make profit but in the long run see it more profitable to go with an American market kit supplier. We already have a feeder agreement with San Jose Earthquakes and will be touring again in the States next pre season.

This information is taken from an insider in the club who also posts on the Spurs Community forum.

As someone was rude earlier by trying to belittle my opinion and myself by stating he was above me with common sense I am glad to hand over this snippet of information.

it honestly depends on the structure of the deal and the financial health of the club. In the example you're mentioning you're talking about a strategy where a club is looking to invest long term to grow their brand with the hope that the increased exposure grows revenues on the back end (revenue sharing/bonuses) or in the future (more exposure = increased sales over time). With the case of MU you have a club that may be strapped for cash in the near term so they are obviously going either with the highest bidder or the one that's going to give them cash up front.

In both scenarios revenue and profit are the primary concern. Design and product quality play a distant second place to the bottom line with deals of this size.

United is actually in pretty good shape because of other sponsor deals they've done. But for teams like Roma that just built a new stadium, or are planning to they need money up front more than planning to view a kit deal as a long term investment.

[Gothamite]

Okay, Ian, do you have an example of a club turning down a higher offer? I can't think of any, but perhaps you know one.

Yes I do, Spurs. Puma wanted to renew the contract and were offering a considerable amount of money more than Under Armour. Enic wanted a more increased exposure with the Amercan market and went with the Under Armour offer. Considering that Joe Lewis/Daniel Levy went for the lower offer is a suprise as they are known for trying to make profit but in the long run see it more profitable to go with an American market kit supplier. We already have a feeder agreement with San Jose Earthquakes and will be touring again in the States next pre season.

This information is taken from an insider in the club who also posts on the Spurs Community forum.

As someone was rude earlier by trying to belittle my opinion and myself by stating he was above me with common sense I am glad to hand over this snippet of information.

That's not aesthetics, though. It's not even turning down a higher offer; as you admit, it's turning down a higher initial payment in order to secure a more profitable deal in the long term. So if anything that's supporting my point.

You originally said:

Nike is just bland and have run out of ideas when it comes to kit making. Probably why they are losing so many contracts to Adidas and Puma at the moment.

And I'm wondering if we can find an example of a team having those priorities.

I understand a national team like Germany bypassing Nike to stay with a German company. But has a club team ever let aesthetics trump revenues in selecting their kit supplier?

[nas1787]

You'd be hard-pressed to find an example because aesthetics is so subjective. What one person thinks of as bland and boring, the next thinks is simple and classy. What one views as cluttered and over-designed another sees as modern and innovative. I doubt you're going to have a big club come out and say we chose X company because we all collectively agree that their product looks better. Instead you pick the brand that offers more money, THEN gush about how terrific the company and their designs are, whether you believe it or not.

[marble21]

Crystal Palace - chose Avec over Nike because they wanted a bespoke design. But Avec is a subsidiary of Nike and so the deal was still with Nike. Avec didn't manufacture training kits, so all of their training kits were Nike branded.

Everton - chose Umbro over Nike, after choosing Nike over Le Coq a few years before. They have a deal with Kitbag who sort out all of their merchandising, kits and training wear. So again it was part of the same deal and not choosing one deal over another for the sake of aesthetics.

Southampton - The Saints dropped Adidas after a big falling out. Supposedly Nicola Cortese was unhappy that he saw the same shirt design that Saints were given only without the badge/sponsors being sold for £15. The fans were unhappy that the shirt was retailing at £50, as well as not including the traditional stripes. They couldn't repair their relationship in time to make their kits for this 14/15 season but will return to Adidas for 15/16.

The last example is probably the closest you will get to what you were saying IanC. Though it still isn't the same thing. It's not like they said, well we didn't like how the Adidas kits looked so we are choosing Manufacturer X instead.

[BlazerBlaze]

The Sounders are wearing the same 3rds as last year, the pitch black kit. They also confirmed on Twitter that they'll have new primary and secondary kits too.

Did they even wear their "secondaries" at all last year? The less black ones.

I believe I watched or attended every match, and my gut says no.

The only picture I could find of Dempsey in the lighter black was against Houston in 2013. Hard to believe they didn't wear it once last season.