Nike Officially Announced as MLB On-Field Uniform Provider

[pianoknight]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Are you saying that a team’s uniform shouldn’t exclusively represent their brand but also serve as a canvas for other unrelated brands?

 

No.

 

I'm saying that a team's uniform should exclusively represent their brand, which can include the outfitter their corporate owners have a signed contract with.  Note here that corporate owners doesn't refer to the Steinbrenners, but rather to MLB.

 

If the Yankees hate the swoosh so much, than negotiate it off the jersey with MLB+Nike.  Or, pack up and join a different baseball league.  

 

This is literally the same thing as a Burger King franchisee getting mad that corporate updated a logo, supplier or menu item.  If you don't like it, you completely have the freedom to either object (and accept the decision of your corporate parent) or you can dump your franchisee license and go find a new way to conduct business. 

 

Plus, the swoosh doesn't look bad.  I mean, we're talking about grown ass men who have a history of wearing stirrups.  I think a swoosh can be lived with. 

[-Akronite-]

4 hours ago, pianoknight said:

 

No.

 

I'm saying that a team's uniform should exclusively represent their brand, which can include the outfitter their corporate owners have a signed contract with.  Note here that corporate owners doesn't refer to the Steinbrenners, but rather to MLB.

  

If the Yankees hate the swoosh so much, than negotiate it off the jersey with MLB+Nike.  Or, pack up and join a different baseball league.  

 

 This is literally the same thing as a Burger King franchisee getting mad that corporate updated a logo, supplier or menu item.  If you don't like it, you completely have the freedom to either object (and accept the decision of your corporate parent) or you can dump your franchisee license and go find a new way to conduct business. 

 

 Plus, the swoosh doesn't look bad.  I mean, we're talking about grown ass men who have a history of wearing stirrups.  I think a swoosh can be lived with. 

 

Huh? Is there something I'm missing? It seems like you're talking about it from the Yankee's FO perspective rather than the actual discussion between board members about their opinions on the branding.

 

Yes, obviously if the Yankees franchise took issue with the new template and added swoosh they'd take it up with Nike and the MLB. What's your point in regards to the opinions here?

[neo_prankster]

How come the deal with MLB and Under Armour fell apart?

[VDizzle12]

5 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

How come the deal with MLB and Under Armour fell apart?

 

Under Armour backed out because of "new marketing strategy" aka losing money and couldn't afford it. 

[MJWalker45]

22 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

Huh? Is there something I'm missing? It seems like you're talking about it from the Yankee's FO perspective rather than the actual discussion between board members about their opinions on the branding.

 

Yes, obviously if the Yankees franchise took issue with the new template and added swoosh they'd take it up with Nike and the MLB. What's your point in regards to the opinions here?

I think his point is that the Yankees have been allowed to be an exception to the rule previously and if the league as a whole made the decision to put the logos on the front the Yankees need to get over it and put it there. Regardless of what team was leaked showing the swoosh though, I think the majority of the board would still be against it being placed there. 

[-Akronite-]

27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I think his point is that the Yankees have been allowed to be an exception to the rule previously and if the league as a whole made the decision to put the logos on the front the Yankees need to get over it and put it there. Regardless of what team was leaked showing the swoosh though, I think the majority of the board would still be against it being placed there. 

 

Totally. I mean, front offices and designers are constantly making decisions that in many people's opinions here goes against the best interests of a team's branding. So not sure there's a point to what he's saying, but again IDK if I missed something.

[pianoknight]

48 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I think his point is that the Yankees have been allowed to be an exception to the rule previously and if the league as a whole made the decision to put the logos on the front the Yankees need to get over it and put it there. Regardless of what team was leaked showing the swoosh though, I think the majority of the board would still be against it being placed there. 

  

Thank you, and yes.

 

Also, aesthetically it's not terrible at all.  It's a minimally-invasive logo, fellas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Kind of feels like the Nike logo has been part of the Yankees uniform for years:

[Marlins93]

On 6/7/2019 at 3:42 PM, MattMill said:

No one will boycott this crap. 

 

I will boycott it, but it also won't be difficult for me to do so, either. 1.) I am already refusing to buy any merch from the Marlins latest rebranding and 2.) I've always been an Adidas guy anyway.

[MJWalker45]

36 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

 

I will boycott it, but it also won't be difficult for me to do so, either. 1.) I am already refusing to buy any merch from the Marlins latest rebranding and 2.) I've always been an Adidas guy anyway.

So is the issue Nike, or just not supporting the Marlins latest mess? Trust me, if adidas wasn't the only folks who made Columbus Crew gear I'd probably not anything other than the jersey, only because I prefer Nike. I feel like they have to shove the 3 stripes into everything and it takes away from some good designs when they do that. 

[pianoknight]

19 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

So is the issue Nike, or just not supporting the Marlins latest mess? Trust me, if adidas wasn't the only folks who made Columbus Crew gear I'd probably not anything other than the jersey, only because I prefer Nike. I feel like they have to shove the 3 stripes into everything and it takes away from some good designs when they do that. 

 

Oh they absolutely do.  It's part of most NCAAF teams' practice jerseys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MattMill]

On 6/10/2019 at 2:03 PM, pianoknight said:

  

Thank you, and yes.

 

Also, aesthetically it's not terrible at all.  It's a minimally-invasive logo, fellas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly, professional sports used to be the least invasive jersey, Period.

 

Look at the NBA. The NBA logo used to be the only thing on the front of the jersey. There were 3-5 different brands manufacturing jerseys in the early 2000s, including Nike. It's this brand creep where we can find this behavior acceptable. It's the new norm and I hate it. 

 

400+ colleges work out deals with dozens of manufacturers. Having their logos everywhere makes sense in a way. It's like in Little league where your team had 4-5 local sponsors.

 

This all reeks of amateurish. Leave the random logos and such on gloves, under shirts, batting gloves, and cleats. A professional sports league should be clear of that. 

 

The Nfl is a tad different. They had multiple manufacturers for years (remember APEX), and their placement has always been on the shoulders. Even in the Brady photo, the swoosh is not a focal point. 

 

I know Nike shoes and wear their apparel, so it's not that I hate these brands. But the creep is ugly

 

MLB now has the ugly side flag on their caps and will follow that up with a chest swoosh. One of the purest sports for years and years is now barely above MiLB

[MJWalker45]

35 minutes ago, MattMill said:

Sadly, professional sports used to be the least invasive jersey, Period.

 

Look at the NBA. The NBA logo used to be the only thing on the front of the jersey. There were 3-5 different brands manufacturing jerseys in the early 2000s, including Nike. It's this brand creep where we can find this behavior acceptable. It's the new norm and I hate it. 

 

400+ colleges work out deals with dozens of manufacturers. Having their logos everywhere makes sense in a way. It's like in Little league where your team had 4-5 local sponsors.

 

This all reeks of amateurish. Leave the random logos and such on gloves, under shirts, batting gloves, and cleats. A professional sports league should be clear of that. 

 

The Nfl is a tad different. They had multiple manufacturers for years (remember APEX), and their placement has always been on the shoulders. Even in the Brady photo, the swoosh is not a focal point. 

 

I know Nike shoes and wear their apparel, so it's not that I hate these brands. But the creep is ugly

 

MLB now has the ugly side flag on their caps and will follow that up with a chest swoosh. One of the purest sports for years and years is now barely above MiLB

I'd be surprised if MiLB doesn't do the same and place manufacturer logos on front. The logo creep has been there for years. The USFL jerseys made by Champion all had logos on their sleeves at some point. Boston College did as well for the Miracle at the Orange Bowl. We pretend that logos only popped up from the 1990s when Nike pit the swoosh on Penn State's sleeve.

[BBTV]

Can we stop calling them 'manufacturer's logos' and just call them advertisements?

 

That's part of how they brainwashed people into thinking it's OK.  

[GFB]

 

The negative component of “selling out” really doesn’t exist any longer, does it? 

[AgentColon2]

[pianoknight]

A few small Nike or Adidas logos are a far cry from NASCAR. I get the fear of creep, but people are acting like a swoosh is akin to Jeff Gordon or Dale Jr. sponsorships. 

[Camden Crazy]

On 6/10/2019 at 4:03 PM, pianoknight said:

  

Thank you, and yes.

 

Also, aesthetically it's not terrible at all.  It's a minimally-invasive logo, fellas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is way too reasonable and not nearly strident enough.  I’m gonna need a little more unhinged bad takes from you, sir.

[Marlins93]

I don't think it's unhinged or an overreaction to say that the Nike swoosh on the front of the classic, clean cut NY Yankees home uniform would not have the same innocuous presence as on a Penn State wrestling singlet. Most college teams (of all sports) and most professional teams for that matter don't have the same iconic brandings, spanning generations, that many MLB teams have. So I take quite a bit of exception to the comparisons drawn above.

 

So while it might be "minimally invasive" in a radically different context (Penn Sate wrestling), that doesn't guarantee that it works for the Yankees or even most MLB teams.

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I don't think it's unhinged or an overreaction to say that the Nike swoosh on the front of the classic, clean cut NY Yankees home uniform would not have the same innocuous presence as on a Penn State wrestling singlet. Most college teams (of all sports) and most professional teams for that matter don't have the same iconic brandings, spanning generations, that many MLB teams have. So I take quite a bit of exception to the comparisons drawn above.

 

So while it might be "minimally invasive" in a radically different context (Penn Sate wrestling), that doesn't guarantee that it works for the Yankees or even most MLB teams.

My opinion on this is that the Yankees uniform isn't as sacred as we pretend it to be. We've known this was going to happen for years. And even though the UA logo is about the same size, it's shape gives it the appearance of being larger than what that Nike logo will look like. I'll also say that swoosh on the Penn State sionglet looks like they were getting ready to ship and forgot to put them on until the day before. If it sat on the leg like that Cliff Kean singlet behind him it would look a little better.