NIKE NFL Uniforms

[ffdb38]

I think the Chiefs' cleats are interesting. That yellow looks very dark and the white looks very grey. Surely that's just a lighting issue...right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?!

I love the Chiefs logo, colors, and uniforms. Maybe they opted for the grey on the shoes only because it is a neutral color.

LOVE that green and especially when it is paired with navy.

Does anyone else wish they would tweak that green and make it just a tad greener?? I feel like it just doesn't pop as much as it could, like someone put just a drop of brown in the paint can

If it was any greener it would look like puke

[oldschoolvikings]

I think the Chiefs' cleats are interesting. That yellow looks very dark and the white looks very grey. Surely that's just a lighting issue...right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?!

I love the Chiefs logo, colors, and uniforms. Maybe they opted for the grey on the shoes only because it is a neutral color.

LOVE that green and especially when it is paired with navy.

Does anyone else wish they would tweak that green and make it just a tad greener?? I feel like it just doesn't pop as much as it could, like someone put just a drop of brown in the paint can

If it was any greener it would look like puke

Nigel Tufnel would say, what could be greener? None... none greener.

[DeFrank]

I think the Chiefs' cleats are interesting. That yellow looks very dark and the white looks very grey. Surely that's just a lighting issue...right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?!

I love the Chiefs logo, colors, and uniforms. Maybe they opted for the grey on the shoes only because it is a neutral color.

LOVE that green and especially when it is paired with navy.

Does anyone else wish they would tweak that green and make it just a tad greener?? I feel like it just doesn't pop as much as it could, like someone put just a drop of brown in the paint can

If it was any greener it would look like puke

Nigel Tufnel would say, what could be greener? None... none greener.

Well are we talking Dolphins or Seahawks green paired with navy?

[guest23]

Teams are either black-shoe or white-. These wouldn't be allowed in games.

So why would Nike go through the process of designing team-color cleats for every team in the league, if they can't be worn in games?

Probably because they're in the merchandise business.

We have a winner.

They can sell as many pairs of cleats and gloves as the public will buy. Doesn't mean that they can be worn on the field.

Reebok was selling on-field and sideline merchandise, which only takes you so far. But Nike is prepared to brand any matter of lifestyle wear in team colors, so they'll be able to exploit the license in ways Reebok couldn't have dreamed.

And this, boys and girls, is why Nike was willing to overpay to get the NFL license. We wondered what Nike would be selling to make the contract worth twice what Reebok was used to paying, and now we know. Shoes, for starters.

You've got this backward. Nike's portion of the contract is only for on-field and sideline merchandise, while Reebok's contract allowed them to also sell in fanwear, headwear and all the other avenues. Overall, Reebok's license had a much larger scope than Nike's, at less than half of what Nike is paying. I'm assuming that cleats qualify as on-field merchandise, but since the cleats don't seem to have team logos on them, I don't know if they are even considered licensed product, which might be a loophole that Nike is exploiting.

Reebok did sell NFL shoes, just not cleats.

reebok sold cleats with the nfl equipment shield (usually on the tongue)every year of the deal except this season.

[guest23]

Reebok never exploited the license the way Nike has already signaled it will.

'

which is why nike is continually the market share leader in just about every sport it chooses to get into...they have superior r&d, designs, and marketing compared to their competition and they know how to maximize revenue out of a brand/property...they've had some misses in the past but they are rare...hockey was a failure and the 1st time they went into action sports it was unsuccessful but they went all in the 2nd go round and now have a significant presence...their war chest of cash also allows them to pluck the best athletes, teams, and schools for sponsorship.

reebok on the other hand never quite got the nfl...their apparel and footwear designs were bland and 100% template driven and given little marketing support...quality was marginal...they are essentially relegated to 3rd tier brand and have come full circle as a aerobics/fitness label.

[Gothamite]

reebok sold cleats with the nfl equipment shield (usually on the tongue)every year of the deal except this season.

I didn't know that. But I already know that Nike will be doing so.

That's the genius of Nike's marketing operation, and that's why the NFL license will be worth so much more in their hands.

[WSU151]

hockey was a failure

While I have to agree it was ultimately a failure, the Ducks' vertical-striped set and the Sharks' fin-panel design were two of the better jerseys in the league at the turn of the century.

[guest23]

hockey was a failure

While I have to agree it was ultimately a failure, the Ducks' vertical-striped set and the Sharks' fin-panel design were two of the better jerseys in the league at the turn of the century.

agree with those hockey designs but I think the original sharks sweaters were perfect and the best in their history...I can't stand that goldenrod/mustard accent they're using now.

[CrazyAnna]

I think the Chiefs' cleats are interesting. That yellow looks very dark and the white looks very grey. Surely that's just a lighting issue...right? RIGHT? RIGHT?!?!

I love the Chiefs logo, colors, and uniforms. Maybe they opted for the grey on the shoes only because it is a neutral color.

LOVE that green and especially when it is paired with navy.

Does anyone else wish they would tweak that green and make it just a tad greener?? I feel like it just doesn't pop as much as it could, like someone put just a drop of brown in the paint can

If it was any greener it would look like puke

You puke bright green?

[andrewharrington]

Teams are either black-shoe or white-. These wouldn't be allowed in games.

So why would Nike go through the process of designing team-color cleats for every team in the league, if they can't be worn in games?

Probably because they're in the merchandise business.

We have a winner.

They can sell as many pairs of cleats and gloves as the public will buy. Doesn't mean that they can be worn on the field.

Reebok was selling on-field and sideline merchandise, which only takes you so far. But Nike is prepared to brand any matter of lifestyle wear in team colors, so they'll be able to exploit the license in ways Reebok couldn't have dreamed.

And this, boys and girls, is why Nike was willing to overpay to get the NFL license. We wondered what Nike would be selling to make the contract worth twice what Reebok was used to paying, and now we know. Shoes, for starters.

You've got this backward. Nike's portion of the contract is only for on-field and sideline merchandise, while Reebok's contract allowed them to also sell in fanwear, headwear and all the other avenues. Overall, Reebok's license had a much larger scope than Nike's, at less than half of what Nike is paying. I'm assuming that cleats qualify as on-field merchandise, but since the cleats don't seem to have team logos on them, I don't know if they are even considered licensed product, which might be a loophole that Nike is exploiting.

Reebok did sell NFL shoes, just not cleats.

All articles printed in October reported Nike can sell "fan gear". Exclusive maker for uniforms and sideline apparel, plus "fan gear". This according to the New York Times, among many sources...

NYT Nike article

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this means the 'on-field' and 'sideline' gear that is sold to fans at retail outlets and online. VF Corp. (parent company of Majestic) is the new licensee for what Reebok called 'fangear,' which was basically the t-shirts and other apparel that wasn't worn on the sideline. Generally a more creative type of design and less subdued clothing line than the sideline apparel.

[slapshot]

reebok sold cleats with the nfl equipment shield (usually on the tongue)every year of the deal except this season.

I didn't know that. But I already know that Nike will be doing so.

That's the genius of Nike's marketing operation, and that's why the NFL license will be worth so much more in their hands.

I have Reebok cleats that I wear when reffing football games, and both of them (one for turf, one for grass) have the NFL Equipment logo on the tongues.

But the most recent pair was purchased last season, so I can't confirm if that logo is on current shoes or not.

[andrewharrington]

Teams are either black-shoe or white-. These wouldn't be allowed in games.

So why would Nike go through the process of designing team-color cleats for every team in the league, if they can't be worn in games?

Probably because they're in the merchandise business.

We have a winner.

They can sell as many pairs of cleats and gloves as the public will buy. Doesn't mean that they can be worn on the field.

Reebok was selling on-field and sideline merchandise, which only takes you so far. But Nike is prepared to brand any matter of lifestyle wear in team colors, so they'll be able to exploit the license in ways Reebok couldn't have dreamed.

And this, boys and girls, is why Nike was willing to overpay to get the NFL license. We wondered what Nike would be selling to make the contract worth twice what Reebok was used to paying, and now we know. Shoes, for starters.

You've got this backward. Nike's portion of the contract is only for on-field and sideline merchandise, while Reebok's contract allowed them to also sell in fanwear, headwear and all the other avenues. Overall, Reebok's license had a much larger scope than Nike's, at less than half of what Nike is paying. I'm assuming that cleats qualify as on-field merchandise, but since the cleats don't seem to have team logos on them, I don't know if they are even considered licensed product, which might be a loophole that Nike is exploiting.

Reebok did sell NFL shoes, just not cleats.

reebok sold cleats with the nfl equipment shield (usually on the tongue)every year of the deal except this season.

I was referring to the shoes with team logos, though. The on-field licensee can affix an NFL Equipment shield to anything they make and sell it, provided it's worn on the field, so Nike will most likely be selling shoes with the shield on them, but not necessarily team logos. Reebok just doesn't have a huge market share in cleats, and not very many stores pick them up, which is why you probably didn't know they existed. If you look at it from Nike's point of view, though, are they going to sell more cleats because they have the NFL equipment logo on them? If you sell the same amount of cleats, but have to pay a royalty to the NFL for every pair, you're not making as much money as you did before. We will see Nike NFL cleats if they think they can increase sales enough to offset the royalties they have to pay for putting the NFL Equipment shield on the product.

Reebok never exploited the license the way Nike has already signaled it will.

This wouldn't surprise me at all, but what evidence suggests this? The Reebok NFL apparel catalog alone was over an inch thick every year, not including all the quick turn graphics and all the playoff graphics. Reebok made TONS of stuff. They may not have done it as best they could, but they sure tried to take advantage of that license to the fullest. Nike's name alone will get them more sales than Reebok, but there's more to 'exploiting a license' than sales.

[McBeastie]

No changes to the Panthers uniforms this year.

According to a team spokesperson

I think one person on this board who's seen the set has already said they weren't getting the 'Pro Combat' treatment, if I'm not mistaken. Can they confirm this? Was it a matter of not having the changes submitted in time or what?

[Gothamite]

Nike's name alone will get them more sales than Reebok, but there's more to 'exploiting a license' than sales.

I don't think Nike would agree with you. Especially considering what they paid for the license.

[DeFrank]

No changes to the Panthers uniforms this year.

According to a team spokesperson

I think one person on this board who's seen the set has already said they weren't getting the 'Pro Combat' treatment, if I'm not mistaken. Can they confirm this? Was it a matter of not having the changes submitted in time or what?

wow.

[Cujo]

No changes to the Panthers uniforms this year.

According to a team spokesperson

I think one person on this board who's seen the set has already said they weren't getting the 'Pro Combat' treatment, if I'm not mistaken. Can they confirm this? Was it a matter of not having the changes submitted in time or what?

I don?t anticipate any changes at all in the uniforms,? Charlie Dayton, the Panthers? team spokesman, told me Tuesday.

Unwind, can you verify this?

[Gr3g3]

If true, HUGE missed opportunity.

[Gothamite]

Ah, I like their uniforms. Classy, modern enough, with a striking color scheme.

You say "missed opportunity", I say "didn't want to fix what wasn't broken".

[shaydre1019]

Sorry if this has been mentioned but I googles seahawks and this is the first thing I saw

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawksblog/2017322737_uniformagreementseahawksgoingtogetnewduds.html

[henburg]

If true, HUGE missed opportunity.

I agree. One of the goals of branding is to sell merchandise and make more money. The average fan wont even notice that the logo was tweaked for a while and when they do, why would they cough up the money for a new jersy when they have an old when that is nearly identical to the new one?