Nike Or Adidas?

[JOE619]

I wish pro sports could go back to the days where teams were free to pick the manufacture of their jerseys.

[nickballouperez]

We did see plenty of ugly piping, awkward side panels, and of course, the terrible TechFit jerseys that stretched and warped everything back when Reebok had the contract, though.

The piping and side panels were on the design end of things. I'm talking about build quality. The TechFit jerseys were horrible, but even then? At least we didn't see sweat boxes, large ugly collars, flywire on the outside (where it serves no practical purpose), or transparent pants. Adidas and Nike both had templates that needed to be tweaked. Adidas' flaws were less egregious, in my opinion.

As for those Reebok design elements? Those were a product of the times more then anything else. The Broncos had the first panelled uniform, and in many ways it kicked off the trend that would lead to the crap we see in Cincinnati and Arizona. It was also a Nike design. We also saw piped and panelled designs by Nike at the collegiate level. Chances are we'd have gotten similar looks if Nike had the contract in the early 2000s.

The Reebok era also gave us the Bills' current uniforms, much like how the Nike era has given us the Vikings' uniforms. The design tendencies of both companies can be reigned in by a team that has a clear idea of what it wants. Build quality, however, is something else all together. And it's the area where Nike falls short of Reebok/Adidas.

Yeah side panels where started by Nike when The Broncos went to navy as their primary, Reebok simple picked up on this fashion fad. Yes I know Reebok made some ugly uniforms like the Vikings, the Bills, and the Jags. The Cardinals are a toss up; personally I think it's a great modern uniform, and The Bengals are alright except for the white side panel on their black and orange jerseys. The winner for the best design by Reebok was the Seattle Seahawks. I loved those jerseys (even those unique green ones), those colors fit the team well and the jerseys look great. The 2 different shades of blue were cool and I like how they made their blue jerseys fade to the 2 different blues. If you look at it, then main torso of the jersey was Seahawk blue the it faded to navy blue on the shoulders. Unfortunately the Seahawks now have those ugly Nike, Oregon Duck wanna be, college-looking uniforms and that virus spread to Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville. As for the TechFit jersey I didn't find a problem with but it could have been better. As for Nike, their so called "enhancements" are mostly B.S. like the flywire collar is suppose to reduce weight on the jersey; so my Reebok jerseys in my closest are wearing me down? Bull. As for the sweat boxes they could serve a purpose but some jerseys just look terrible with them(Look at the Jets). Those big ugly collars and those half, dress shirt like collars are bad and dumb. And the pants are bad, it's like Nike wants us to look at players' asses and stuff.

[FiddySicks]

In all seriousness...

Nike wins in soccer and it's not even close.

Football? All Reebok. Nike's sweat boxes and giant collars do nothing for me. Nike can re-enter the conversation when they figure out how to properly replicate a single shade of green over a single jersey.

Hockey is close. I would have said Nike back in 2010, when they seemed to perfect their hockey template. Then 2014 rolled around and they began obsessing over weird colours with faux laces and strange materials. Almost like they let their football design monkeys design hockey uniforms. It's all Reekbok/CCM now that the more egregious aspects of the EDGE sweaters have been scaled back or eliminated.

I agree that Reebok was the king of NFL uniforms, but since they are not around anymore we are stuck with the hideous sweat boxes. But I will say that Under Armor is doing a better job as of late than Nike and will always be better than the tire-tread jerseys of Adidas.

Yeah except that Reebok's fan gear was an absolute travesty. I was NEVER able to find a Reebok shirt that fit properly while they had the NFL contract. Their jerseys were flimsy, cheap, fell apart after like two washes, and fit even worse than their T shirts. And let's not even start on those atrocities they called caps.

Sure, they looked better on the field in some minor spots, but Nike absolutely blows Reebok out of the water on the NFL gear they offer. The quality and consistency isn't even remotely close.

[MJWalker45]

Same with the college fan jerseys. Texas A&M jerseys looked flimsy and the Texas jerseys were probably as well put together as the actual uniforms some high schools team use.

[Gothamite]

I think Nike's self-promotion is annoying and agregious. Still, the swoosh is far less annoying than the three stripes.

If Adidias didn't also put their logo on jerseys, in addition to the stripes, I might not mind so much. But the double-dipping is too much.

[dolphins91]

Bucfan has common sense

[IceCap]

I think Nike's self-promotion is annoying and agregious. Still, the swoosh is far less annoying than the three stripes.

If Adidias didn't also put their logo on jerseys, in addition to the stripes, I might not mind so much. But the double-dipping is too much.

As far as MLS goes? The NCAA teams Adidas designs for don't let them slap the three stripes on everything. The NBA doesn't let the three stripes or the company logo onto the actual uniforms. MLS, or the teams themselves, need to be firm. I understand why they weren't in the past, but if the MLS partisans are to be believed the league's stock has risen to the point where they can afford to put their foot down.

Sure, they looked better on the field in some minor spots...

I wouldn't call pants that become near-transparent, the inability to make a green jersey in a single uniform shade, or sweat boxes "minor spots." In terms of on-field uniforms? Reebok kept it simple. Nike rolled out half-baked "innovations" and things look worse as a result.

[WMUfootball]

Nike if you want creativity, Adidas if you want traditional. Personally I prefer Nike

[FiddySicks]

I think Nike's self-promotion is annoying and agregious. Still, the swoosh is far less annoying than the three stripes.

If Adidias didn't also put their logo on jerseys, in addition to the stripes, I might not mind so much. But the double-dipping is too much.

As far as MLS goes? The NCAA teams Adidas designs for don't let them slap the three stripes on everything. The NBA doesn't let the three stripes or the company logo onto the actual uniforms. MLS, or the teams themselves, need to be firm. I understand why they weren't in the past, but if the MLS partisans are to be believed the league's stock has risen to the point where they can afford to put their foot down.

Sure, they looked better on the field in some minor spots...

I wouldn't call pants that become near-transparent, the inability to make a green jersey in a single uniform shade, or sweat boxes "minor spots." In terms of on-field uniforms? Reebok kept it simple. Nike rolled out half-baked "innovations" and things look worse as a result.

IMO, the ONLY team that really looks worse since the Nike takeover is the Jets, and the Jets have always looked like crap.

The sweat boxes have never really bugged me that much, but I agree with you on the pants. I definitely find the pants to be a downgrade. But as a fan, that's kind of minor to me because I'll never have any reason to wear NFL game pants or jerseys, and those problems you pointed out I find to be relatively easy to overlook.

But when I drop $35 or more on a dri fit T shirt or $80 or more on a jersey and they're flimsy and don't fit right, I'm usually pretty upset. That's the one factor I'm mostly talking about. There is NO DOUBT that the fan gear Nike puts out is SO much better than the crap Reebok used to roll out, and that alone is worth putting up with a slightly off shade of green and some sweat boxes IMO.

[dolphins91]

How many teams use reebok in ncaa football? None. How many use Nike? Over 80. Ever wondered why that is, because Nike is the best at making football uniforms.

No, that's because Adidas owns Reebok and uses Adidas branding for all of their football teams.

If you believe that Reebok brands their football products as Adidas you are far from being right. Reebok still makes football uniforms (CFL) despite being owned by adidas because they are a branch of Adidas. You don't see the Adidas logo on NHL uniforms. Also look at the differences in material, Adidas uses new light weight and tight material and Reebok uses materials from 7 years ago. And for the people wanting Reebok back to the nfl you probably haven't played football in quite a while. I play high school football and we have under armour uniforms for home and Russell on the away unis. They difference is night and day. You feel so much better in tighter more lightweight uniforms than heavy and thick materials used by Russell or Reebok.alongside with how they feel, they look so much better too. Unless you have played with under armour or Nike uniforms in the past few years you can't say that Nike or under armour sucks.

[slapshot]

So maybe this is just a dumb question, but it was just coincidence that Nike had all four playoff teams in their fold? They don't have some special kind of contract to do all playoff teams? I'm worried about what happens with the uniforms in the future when we have Nike v. Adidas in the playoff.

For this season? Coincidental.

But, in a way, it's not.

In college, each team can be sponsored by whichever manufacturer it wishes. When branding started getting more prevalent (say, the early 90s), Nike started throwing as much money as it could towards teams that were traditional powerhouses, or otherwise always in the spotlight. So out the teams you always saw on TV, and ranked in the top 20, a good 75% of them wore Nike. Nike found an untapped market, and dominated it with exposure.

Since the early 2000s, other companies also began to throw their money at schools, and took away some of the Nike schools.

Nike also was selective with some schools, depending on their sport of dominance. For example, Boston College wore Reebok for most of its teams. I think soccer teams wore Adidas (before Adidas bought Reebok). But BC is not an "elite" school. Except for hockey. So, when Nike expanded its hockey line, it outfitted BC, and a number of other teams in Hockey East.

Even teams that wear some other brands (like Georgia Tech, with Russell Athletic), wear Nike footwear.

[BadSeed84]

Adidas is worse, I mean cmon look at this!

[Digby]

Nike if you want creativity, Adidas if you want traditional. Personally I prefer Nike

This is why you have to go on a sport-by-sport basis, because these adjectives would, in general, be reversed in world soccer.

[guest23]

How many teams use reebok in ncaa football? None. How many use Nike? Over 80. Ever wondered why that is, because Nike is the best at making football uniforms.

No, that's because Adidas owns Reebok and uses Adidas branding for all of their football teams.

If you believe that Reebok brands their football products as Adidas you are far from being right. Reebok still makes football uniforms (CFL) despite being owned by adidas because they are a branch of Adidas. You don't see the Adidas logo on NHL uniforms. Also look at the differences in material, Adidas uses new light weight and tight material and Reebok uses materials from 7 years ago. And for the people wanting Reebok back to the nfl you probably haven't played football in quite a while. I play high school football and we have under armour uniforms for home and Russell on the away unis. They difference is night and day. You feel so much better in tighter more lightweight uniforms than heavy and thick materials used by Russell or Reebok.alongside with how they feel, they look so much better too. Unless you have played with under armour or Nike uniforms in the past few years you can't say that Nike or under armour sucks.

CFL unis are likely produced by ripon who made the majority of rbk nfl uniforms before nike. Rbk football has been nothing more than a label on 3rd party product for quite some time. I think tech fit may have been a joint effot between rbk/adi after the acquisition but can't confirm for sure. At this point rbk is a shell of a company as it's basically a sub label of adi who have let the company die on the vine with the one exception being crossfit.

Also nearly all product that's available for retail across all sports are produced by 3rd party producers for all big sporting goods suppliers, hardgoods and apparel. Nike/adi/UA are design and marketing companies first and foremost.

[Gothamite]

I think Nike's self-promotion is annoying and agregious. Still, the swoosh is far less annoying than the three stripes.

If Adidias didn't also put their logo on jerseys, in addition to the stripes, I might not mind so much. But the double-dipping is too much.

As far as MLS goes? The NCAA teams Adidas designs for don't let them slap the three stripes on everything. The NBA doesn't let the three stripes or the company logo onto the actual uniforms. MLS, or the teams themselves, need to be firm. I understand why they weren't in the past, but if the MLS partisans are to be believed the league's stock has risen to the point where they can afford to put their foot down.

It's not just MLS - it's everywhere in football.

Pick one or the other, jerks.

It's the same problem I have with Kappa, and their mudflap logo that's itself far worse than the three stripes of Adidas:

Wordmark or sitting kids. Choose one. There should never be more logos of the manufacturer than the team itself.

Nike has many faults, but that's not one of them. Their branding is strong enough, and simple enough, that they only need the one swoosh.

Soccer is the only place where I see multiple companies competing in the same league and on the same field, so it's the only place I can really make a judgement - Nike's branding is far less offensive than that of Adidas and many others.

[AnPheitseog]

Honestly?

I think Canterbury of New Zealand should be used a LOT more than what they are, I adore their rugby jerseys, both as a fan and as a player

[colortv]

Adidas boost cushioning is like walking on marshmallows in heaven.. they are without a doubt the most comfortable shoes I've ever worn.. as for uniforms, Adidas shock web techfit (tire tread) is not nearly as bad as everyone on this board makes it out to be.. sometimes they overdo it with the glossy look like wanna-be Oregon wings (Louisville's black jerseys), but in general I don't notice it. It's not meant to be a pattern or a design element.. It's supposed to act like super-large-porthole mesh, with thinner, more comfortable compression material filling the holes.. It's just a current technology that may not be ideal, but isn't the huge eyesore it gets treated like.. Nike is just a guilty of producing bad panels on jerseys with their sweat boxes and pit stains, so I'll take either and be ok with it.

As far as fit, function, and innovation, it's Nike by a country mile, but I will give Adidas credit for stepping things up recently, and Adidas has always had a massive lead over Nike in the wrestling market (which is my main concern as a college wrestler and coach), but that's because Nike doesn't innovate in wrestlinglike they do in football and Adidas puts a lot of energy into wrestling.

Mainly, I just wish they'd standardize sizing.. I wear a 10.5 in Adidas and 11.5 in Nike.. so annoying

I've never worn a shoe with Boost cushioning but I consistently hear the same thing. They have started implementing it into their basketball shoes now too.

[orangefaniniowa]

It is an obvious no brainer. Nike without a doubt, with Under Armour second, and Adidas a distant third. Nike makes better quality of their apparel. From jerseys, shirts, shoes, socks, sweat pants, shorts, etc. it is bar none the best. Heck, I like the Nike Jordan jumpman logo better, and when I have that chance I will buy that as well. Everytime I look at Adidas apparel it screams "cheap" for me, even though the prices aren't. I have not yet buy anything for Under Armour, but I am considering it sometime in the future. Although the quality apparel is not as good as Nike is, they still make some great clothing. I also like that strong "UA" logo which is a symbol of durability and toughness for their apparel.

[orangefaniniowa]

Adidas is worse, I mean cmon look at this!

Yeah, that would be a great costume for next year's Halloween party.

[Gothamite]

I also like that strong "UA" logo which is a symbol of durability and toughness for their apparel.

No, wait. I mean