Report: Nike to Take Over MLB Uniforms in 2020

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Adidas? Its share nearly doubled year over year, from 6.3% in May 2016 to 11.3% in May 2017.

 

Nike lost 1.2 share points and has nearly 40% of the market...adi has executed a nice turnaround in footwear by poaching some nike designers and becoming much more forward thinking but the order of magnitude is nearly 4x.

 

There is only one 800lb gorilla and the rest of the monkeys are flinging poo at each other...I would love to see more competition but here we are.

 

Well, sure. It’s no secret that Nike is the market leader. It has been for years. What’s new is that its growth is slowing and it’s losing market share for the first time ever, which proves that other brands *are* competing with it and gaining ground in the market despite not having those league deals. I think only time will tell whether these more expensive league deals provide a worthwhile return on the investment.

[zigbazah]

To me, this template looks pretty good. I like the gray heather. Something like this would be fine. Teams just have to rein in Nike's wacky streak. 

 

[WSU151]

40 minutes ago, zigbazah said:

To me, this template looks pretty good. I like the gray heather. Something like this would be fine. Teams just have to rein in Nike's wacky streak. 

 

 

Looks like he's wearing sweatpants.

[jn8]

I think there’s a lot of over reaction here. Nike is known for being more of a “wild” design company, but look at a majority of their college designs, they aren’t crazy at all

Sure, there are some teams with awkward panels, but not everyone has them

 

Nike won’t have full control over designs, teams will. Will Nike give suggestions? Of course, but the final decision is on the teams. Nike can only do what the teams tell them to do. For most teams, this will simply be a transfer of the current design to a new template, for some, they may use this as a way to start fresh, some giving more control over to Nike than others. A lot of people on here need to realize that a manufacturer like Nike has to listen to the teams, not the other way around...

[FinsUp1214]

1 hour ago, zigbazah said:

To me, this template looks pretty good. I like the gray heather. Something like this would be fine. Teams just have to rein in Nike's wacky streak. 

 

 

Yeah, I’m actually pretty okay with that. And I would LOVE to see a team like the Yankees in a simple, heather gray road.

[Cujo]

On 5/25/2018 at 4:50 PM, Mitch B said:

Nike ruined the uniforms of the NFL, so it seems like a natural progression to move to MLB to do the same.

 

Yea, cause Reebok was doing such an awesome job with the NFL...

 

[kroywen]

30 minutes ago, zigbazah said:

To me, this template looks pretty good. I like the gray heather. Something like this would be fine. Teams just have to rein in Nike's wacky streak. 

 

Here's the thing: I don't trust most team owners/front offices to do that, by and large. Most don't have the knowledge or interest in these sorts of things that we do, and plenty of owners get sucked into Nike's marketing BS. Look at the Browns, Titans, Seahawks, and practically all of the NBA - they gave Nike carte blanche when designing those uniforms. 

[BBTV]

22 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Here's the thing: I don't trust most team owners/front offices to do that, by and large. Most don't have the knowledge or interest in these sorts of things that we do, and plenty of owners get sucked into Nike's marketing BS. Look at the Browns, Titans, Seahawks, and practically all of the NBA - they gave Nike carte blanche when designing those uniforms. 

 

The most important thing is that they don't have the same motives as we do.  They're primarily concerned about generating revenue, while we're concerned about history and aesthetics.  

 

We don't know that the teams are actually unhappy with Nike's designs, if they're accomplishing their main goal, which was to boost sales and get attention.  The Browns might say that they want to go back to something more traditional, but that doesn't mean that they didn't accomplish everything they wanted to and aren't happy with Nike.

[kroywen]

10 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

The most important thing is that they don't have the same motives as we do.  They're primarily concerned about generating revenue, while we're concerned about history and aesthetics.  

 

We don't know that the teams are actually unhappy with Nike's designs, if they're accomplishing their main goal, which was to boost sales and get attention.  The Browns might say that they want to go back to something more traditional, but that doesn't mean that they didn't accomplish everything they wanted to and aren't happy with Nike.

 

Well, yeah, that's the most important thing. And if Nike sells a team owner on the notion that a cutting-edge uniform (preferably one that will be dated and in need of replacement in 5 years) will sell better than something more conservative, the team owner will jump for it.

 

The only way a team owner will keep Nike "in check" is if their team has a long history with a certain visual identity, and tampering with it too much would reduce sales, in their view.

[FiddySicks]

On 5/24/2018 at 2:50 PM, skip88 said:

Damn, wonder what will happen to the employees  at Majestic, will they still be making the jerseys. Remember they first were scared by the UA deal, then relived when told the jerseys would still be made by them. Now we go though this again?

 

I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure they’ve been using the same manufacturer for quite a long time and they just put the manufacturers logo on the jerseys after the fact. The NFL used to do that for years with their game jerseys. I’m not sure if Nike nixed that and used their own facilities, but I seem to remember they kept them because they were a domestic operation capable of getting shipments out quickly. 

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure they’ve been using the same manufacturer for quite a long time and they just put the manufacturers logo on the jerseys after the fact. The NFL used to do that for years with their game jerseys. I’m not sure if Nike nixed that and used their own facilities, but I seem to remember they kept them because they were a domestic operation capable of getting shipments out quickly. 

 

Majestic was sold to Fanatics, who was also going to make the retail jerseys under the UA deal, so there's no reason to think that they won't be manufacturing the retail jerseys under Nike, via Fanatics.  Doesn't sound like they'll have anything to do with the on-field ones.

[ChicagoOakland]

If they make the A's go from forest green to volt green, I'm going up to Oregon myself and picketing Nike HQ.

That is all.

[DeFrank]

5 minutes ago, ChicagoOakland said:

If they make the A's go from forest green to volt green, I'm going up to Oregon myself and picketing Nike HQ.

That is all.

 

You have absolutely no idea how any of this works. You're so off-base its embarrassing. Nothing in this post makes any sense whatsoever.

...

Volt is yellow, not green.

[ChicagoOakland]

2 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

 

You have absolutely no idea how any of this works. You're so off-base its embarrassing. Nothing in this post makes any sense whatsoever.

...

Volt is yellow, not green.

 

You're right...just tried to make a quick joke.

In all honesty, I am optimistic Nike will be somewhat more subdued with any baseball redesigns considering how much more baseball values "tradition" than the NBA or NFL.

Then again, they could prove me wrong and throw every trend possible out there to try and get the kids interested in baseball.

[BBTV]

Teams will be able to use Nike's in-house design teams, use their own, or simply not change anything.  Every one of these threads when a supplier changes are exactly the same, and end the same way - it's the teams, not the designer, that are at fault (or get credit) for anything that's changed.

 

With a few exceptions, I'm not thrilled with the designs that Nike's team has put out, but unless the team has said "just do whatever you want and we're cool with it", it's not Nike's fault.  I'd expect that the team, like any normal client, would provide a high-level vision, or at the very least a set of minimum requirements, and then have a set number of iterations that consist of reviews and tweaks.  

 

There's almost no way - unless it's specifically written in the contract that X number of teams must get full makeovers during teh length of the contract, and of those, NIke gets full reign over N of them, it's anyone's fault but the team's owner.  It's naive to think otherwise.

[jdavidev]

On 5/26/2018 at 8:24 AM, Volt said:

 

This is very accurate.   UA is hurting right now, which is sad considering their once-promising retail growth.  They still do well with kids & women, but the feel I get being in the business is that trend is also starting to fade slightly.  Their product in some regards is still fantastic, but their team uniform business is a little suspect.  adidas said they would take the money saved  from the NBA deal and go buy college sponsorships and athletes, and they did, but they're not getting a ROI from Aaron Rodgers and the schools they flipped from Nike.

From a business & marketing angle, every time someone puts on an official Steelers or Celtics product now, it's Nike.  Which means they'll probably wanna wear Nike shoes with it.  And once they commit to a brand, people typically stick with one as their primary.  So, these people buy MORE Nike product when they need socks or shorts or a sweatshirt.  At least those who are cognizant about what they wear (not looking at you, people that wear an adidas shirt with UA socks and Nike shoes...at the same time).   It's smart business because they are aligning their brand with the #1 leagues in the world, and you get shared quality perception.

 

UA & adidas have been trying but have not been able to gain much if any ground on Nike, from a marketing, business, quality, and brand power perspective.  I love the Nike haters, but they're the undisputed #1 in all of these areas.  Do they tinker?  Yes.  Some call that innovation.  Some call it business.  In reality, it's both.  

Just because it's not made of wool and doesn't have striped socks, doesn't mean it's not good.

Holy cow, just because you have a Nike shirt, doesn't mean you need to pair it with Nike shoes and Nike hat and Nike jeans.  If people really feel that way, the Guf has certainly run dry. 

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Teams will be able to use Nike's in-house design teams, use their own, or simply not change anything.  Every one of these threads when a supplier changes are exactly the same, and end the same way - it's the teams, not the designer, that are at fault (or get credit) for anything that's changed.

 

With a few exceptions, I'm not thrilled with the designs that Nike's team has put out, but unless the team has said "just do whatever you want and we're cool with it", it's not Nike's fault.  I'd expect that the team, like any normal client, would provide a high-level vision, or at the very least a set of minimum requirements, and then have a set number of iterations that consist of reviews and tweaks. 

 

But don't the designer and the team both deserve a share of the blame, in that case? It's like if you decide build a house, and the architect pumps out the most hideous looking McMansion crap, and you simply make some tweaks rather than starting the process over. Do you deserve blame for putting up an ugly house? Absolutely, but the architect - the one who is supposed to be an expert in home design - deserves blame for pumping out such a bad design. And there's no question that the house would look very different had you contracted a different architect to design it.

 

The same principle applies here. Yes, a team wearing ugly uniforms deserves blame for agreeing to them (or setting out bad parameters to begin with), but the designer absolutely deserves blame as well. They're the ones who are supposed to be experts in uniform design and aesthetics, and they're the ones who are ultimately creating the design and executing it. We can't just absolve the designer because "the team should know better." Both deserve some blame.

 

And FWIW, there's no question than MLB (both certain individual teams and the overall uniform template) under Nike will look different from MLB under Majestic, or MLB under Under Armour. Just as the NFL looks different under Nike than it did under Reebok, and the NBA looks different under Nike than it did under Adidas. That alone is evidence that the design team matters a whole lot.

[verno]

Nike should bring back the pullover!!! JK. And please leave my Cardinals alone?

[andrewharrington]

16 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure they’ve been using the same manufacturer for quite a long time and they just put the manufacturers logo on the jerseys after the fact. The NFL used to do that for years with their game jerseys. I’m not sure if Nike nixed that and used their own facilities, but I seem to remember they kept them because they were a domestic operation capable of getting shipments out quickly. 

 

In this day and age, it’s exceedingly rare for any large brand to have its own dedicated manufacturing facility. It’s probably fair to say that, more often than not, any facility that makes garments on this scale probably makes garments for more than one brand. Big designers who don’t wish to spend overhead on manufacturing do the design and big manufacturers who don’t wish to spend overhead on design do the manufacturing. It’s a subcontractor’s market out there.

[andrewharrington]

4 hours ago, kroywen said:

 

But don't the designer and the team both deserve a share of the blame, in that case? It's like if you decide build a house, and the architect pumps out the most hideous looking McMansion crap, and you simply make some tweaks rather than starting the process over. Do you deserve blame for putting up an ugly house? Absolutely, but the architect - the one who is supposed to be an expert in home design - deserves blame for pumping out such a bad design. And there's no question that the house would look very different had you contracted a different architect to design it.

 

The same principle applies here. Yes, a team wearing ugly uniforms deserves blame for agreeing to them (or setting out bad parameters to begin with), but the designer absolutely deserves blame as well. They're the ones who are supposed to be experts in uniform design and aesthetics, and they're the ones who are ultimately creating the design and executing it. We can't just absolve the designer because "the team should know better." Both deserve some blame.

 

And FWIW, there's no question than MLB (both certain individual teams and the overall uniform template) under Nike will look different from MLB under Majestic, or MLB under Under Armour. Just as the NFL looks different under Nike than it did under Reebok, and the NBA looks different under Nike than it did under Adidas. That alone is evidence that the design team matters a whole lot.

 

This depends a whole lot on the goal of the particular thing being designed, which is almost always supplied via a brief created by someone at the team.

 

A designer or art/creative director may think they know what’s best for the team (I do this all the time), but they still have to deliver and sell the work against that brief and the team’s interpretation of that brief (which can often differ depending on which person you talk to). Telling a client, “I know what’s best for you,” can elicit wildly different responses depending on who you say it to. A good 50% of design is finding the best way to help your client understand why the actual best idea fulfills their goal and is the right idea for them.