2017/18 Soccer Kits

[njdevs7]

Yea Ajax is really good. And the Chevrolet logo really is terrible. I don't understand why it has to be a gold gradient logo like that. It draws all the attention. Why can't it just be a white logo? 

[upperV03]

10 minutes ago, njdevs7 said:

Yea Ajax is really good. And the Chevrolet logo really is terrible. I don't understand why it has to be a gold gradient logo like that. It draws all the attention. Why can't it just be a white logo? 

If either the terms of Chevy's brand guidelines or their contract with Man United mandate that the logo appear that way, then there's nothing United and Adidas can do. Chevy gets all the say in the matter since they're the ones paying big money for their logo to appear there.

[Gothamite]

1 minute ago, upperV03 said:

If either the terms of Chevy's brand guidelines or their contract with Man United mandate that the logo appear that way, then there's nothing United and Adidas can do. Chevy gets all the say in the matter since they're the ones paying big money for their logo to appear there.

 

True, but let's not forget that Man U negotiated that contract with Chevrolet.  I don't fault Chevy for ensuring their logo overwhelms the shirt, I fault the club for letting them. 

[upperV03]

36 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

True, but let's not forget that Man U negotiated that contract with Chevrolet.  I don't fault Chevy for ensuring their logo overwhelms the shirt, I fault the club for letting them. 

Of course, I fault the club as well. Considering the shirt sponsorship was by far and away the most valuable in world football, and still is today (albeit by a slimmer margin), it seems pretty clear that United's priorities in negotiating the deal didn't include how the logo would appear on the shirts. Alas, it's becoming increasingly clear that that's just the world we live in these days, even if it means ruining one of the more inconic and sacred uniforms in all of sports.

[Gothamite]

16 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

Of course, I fault the club as well. Considering the shirt sponsorship was by far and away the most valuable in world football, and still is today (albeit by a slimmer margin), it seems pretty clear that United's priorities in negotiating the deal didn't include how the logo would appear on the shirts. Alas, it's becoming increasingly clear that that's just the world we live in these days, even if it means ruining one of the more inconic and sacred uniforms in all of sports.

 

It seems that Manchester United was in a unique position to keep the sponsorship from getting out of hand.

[kroywen]

8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It seems that Manchester United was in a unique position to keep the sponsorship from getting out of hand.

I would love to know the premium that Chevy paid to have their logo rendered in full color, rather than as a flat white logo.

 

Frankly, whatever they paid, it's a waste - the Chevy bowtie is recognizable even without the full color. The old flat blue bow-tie is probably more well-known even, at least to people of a certain age.

[Digby]

Gold bowtie bad, yes, but also that is a ridiculous watermark on the Man Utd leak. Like something from a tacky bootleg shirt.

[upperV03]

Best shot yet of the Liverpool away kit:

[hendocfc]

Keep in mind it comes with black shorts,not white as pictured

[upperV03]

15 minutes ago, hendocfc said:

Keep in mind it comes with black shorts,not white as pictured

Yeah I know, but they'll almost surely have white shorts as well in case of clashes. For example, when they play away at Bournemouth, white shorts would be a much better option than black. Or even maybe when they play away at Palace. There are probably some other instances where white shorts could be necessary as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Of course there's always the possibility of potential clashes in domestic and European cup competitions, but that's more difficult to predict.

[kerlonmoura]

14 hours ago, upperV03 said:

Important to note that the image FH posted is actually a fake, but the design will indeed look like that, or at least very similar. I happen to think it's a really nice recreation of the iconic '95 kit (see below), and it helps that the design is a bit more subdued than the original. Funny enough, I actually think Nike's template does this shirt a lot of favors in that the solid navy sleeves make for a much classier look than the original, which had the pattern carried over from the chest to the sleeves. 

 

I like how the sleeves look like eagle feathers; probably done to refer to the club's nickname, Las Aguilas (The Eagles).

[MJWalker45]

On Sun May 21 2017 at 0:51 PM, Gothamite said:

Can't agree.  I think the collar and cuffs are too much white. Liverpool is more effective to my eye when they own their trademark color, when they don't dilute it with white.

If the logo was white I could like this more.

[Gothamite]

 

 

On 5/21/2017 at 1:51 PM, Gothamite said:

On 5/21/2017 at 0:50 PM, upperV03 said:

 

I think the collar and cuffs are too much white. Liverpool is more effective to my eye when they own their trademark color, when they don't dilute it with white.

 

On 5/21/2017 at 2:43 PM, upperV03 said:

I generally agree with you that they shouldn't use an abundance of white, but I'm making an exception for the new kit since it looks to be somewhat of a throwback to the late 70's, early '80's kits. I think it's pure class and a really fitting tribute to their most successful years. Some may argue that it doesn't make sense to have the kit resemble those of the late '70's and early '80's since they're celebrating 125 years, but I think they were smart to honor their most successful teams during their 125 years in existence.

 

Yeah, I get that it's a throwback.  And as a throwback it's pretty effective.  It's certainly evocative of the era it references.

 

But even some of the European Cup glory teams had less white on their kits, with solid red socks.

 

Maybe that's what's bothering me about it - the white on the socks.  It's a nice balance to the white neckline and cuffs, but in a vacuum, I think the most impressive Liverpool look is red red red, with as little distraction as possible.

 

[kroywen]

42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I get that it's a throwback.  And as a throwback it's pretty effective.  It's certainly evocative of the era it references.

 

But even some of the European Cup glory teams had less white on their kits, with solid red socks.

 

Maybe that's what's bothering me about it - the white on the socks.  It's a nice balance to the white neckline and cuffs, but in a vacuum, I think the most impressive Liverpool look is red red red, with as little distraction as possible.

 

 

I'd actually have to disagree here. To me, the bottom picture lacks any sort of color balance - it is unrelentingly red, with nothing to break up all that red color.

 

While I think any monochromatic uniform needs some trim color to break up the 'main' color a bit, it's especially needed with an all-red uniform. Red is a bright, fiery color, and overdoing it (like in that bottom picture) is actually a bit rough on the eyes, IMO. The 2017-18 kit as a much better color balance, with the red offset by white trim and text. To me, at least, it's a lot easier on the eyes and a far more balanced look.

 

Not coincidentally, I'd say the new kit is my favorite Liverpool kit in years and years - perhaps the best looking one since they adopted a shirt sponsor.

[Gothamite]

I'll happily agree to disagree.  I think some teams are most successful when they paint with the broadest strokes. 

[Popmart]

Bilbao moving to New Balance this summer.

 

 

[upperV03]

Man City training kits:

I like these both considerably more than the upcoming claret/sky blue away kit. The claret and navy work really well together and I think it's a more unique look overall. Plus it doesn't look like Villa, West Ham, Burnley, etc. (though I don't really think that's an issue since the burgundy/maroon/claret has some precedent in City's history).

[Berlin Wall]

Nike doing these Puma-style gradient stripes on their training gear?

 

[upperV03]

14 minutes ago, Berlin Wall said:

Nike doing these Puma-style gradient stripes on their training gear?

 

Ehhh, not really. You can kind of see the pattern more clearly on this image of the Chelsea training shirt and this closeup of the Atlético training jacket:

There's not much of a resemblance at all, and if anything the Nike pattern is much less offensive since it's thinner and only appears on training gear instead of match kits. Say what you will about Nike's kits and the Vapor Aeroswift template, but Puma's designs for next season with the gradients are absolutely brutal. 

[Victormrey]

Nike have released the new Roma and Galatasaray kits:

 

 

Meanwhile, in Kenya somebody made a design while high on something: