BJ Sands

Nike Officially Announced as MLB On-Field Uniform Provider

Recommended Posts

oof. 

 

If Nike does intend on slapping their logo on the front, I would like it to be that size and not an obnoxiously huge one like the NBA has or those ugly chrome ones I see on some of their College Baseball uniforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 4:05 PM, AstroBull21 said:

Replica jerseys in the NBA dont have the ad logo on them, except for maybe the ones sold at the venue team shops themselves, so the ad revenue doesnt carry over like you assume it would

 

ff_3025834_full.jpg&w=340

You're right. For the Cavs, we should the patch right on the jerseys at the store and online, but a fan went to Dick's or the NBA Store, they wouldn't get the patch.

 

It's all a money maker. People want the latest jerseys, and if the have a patch on it, you know they'll buy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

Nike has been making MLB retail/fashion jerseys for years, but these are pretty interesting (see: What Nike *could* do if the company had full autonomy).

https://www.nike.com/t/dri-fit-astros-mens-baseball-jersey-3Cthwq/00036969X-OR1

dri-fit-orioles-mens-baseball-jersey-3Ct

https://www.nike.com/t/yankees-mens-hooded-baseball-jersey-kCGVTc/00037129X-GS1

yankees-mens-hooded-baseball-jersey-kCGV

Is the reverse K in Nike used for all their baseball products?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, eww7633 said:

1CST_K2V0260.jpg

 

Not sure the context here, but this is my absolute favorite soccer uniform of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 12:17 PM, eww7633 said:

1CST_K2V0260.jpg

I prefer a national team soccer jersey because they don't feature ads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect everyone to be as outraged as I am about advertisements on the uniforms.  But I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks it's a positive or even neutral to put them on.  

 

In my opinion it cannot be done "tastefully."  Any logo, including manufacturer logos, is distasteful.  Some are not as distasteful.  The current ad on the sleeve of MLB jerseys is distasteful...but it just happens to be so difficult to see that it barely registers.  Swooshes on NFL sleeves?  A bit more distasteful. The more that it's done the more distasteful it gets.  The NBA definitely crossed a new line with its corporate ads.  I expect the rest to follow suit.

 

But even on this board some people are OK with it or even prefer it.  I don't get it.  Now the Celtics share their brand with GE.  And that photo above?  I was able to recognize that Sounders logo, but they really aren't putting the team out there very well.  But obviously the cost/benefit improves when teams water their brands down and share their "billboards" (i.e., the uniforms their players are wearing) with un-related corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t prefer it, but it’s the way things are.

 

I just personally don’t think it’s worth mentioning every time soccer kits are discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 6:40 AM, EddieJ1984 said:

Ad's are trashy looking.

When I see NBA clips the celtics look so bad with that big honkin GE ad.

I flipped the game on the other night and laughed at how gaudy that "GE" ad is on the Celtics uniform.  It's terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 2:10 PM, OnWis97 said:

I don't expect everyone to be as outraged as I am about advertisements on the uniforms.  But I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks it's a positive or even neutral to put them on.  

 

In my opinion it cannot be done "tastefully."  Any logo, including manufacturer logos, is distasteful.  Some are not as distasteful.  The current ad on the sleeve of MLB jerseys is distasteful...but it just happens to be so difficult to see that it barely registers.  Swooshes on NFL sleeves?  A bit more distasteful. The more that it's done the more distasteful it gets.  The NBA definitely crossed a new line with its corporate ads.  I expect the rest to follow suit.

 

But even on this board some people are OK with it or even prefer it.  I don't get it.  Now the Celtics share their brand with GE.  And that photo above?  I was able to recognize that Sounders logo, but they really aren't putting the team out there very well.  But obviously the cost/benefit improves when teams water their brands down and share their "billboards" (i.e., the uniforms their players are wearing) with un-related corporations.

 

You have framed the matter perfectly.  I can agree with everything you have written.

 

It is particularly pathetic when soccer fans make excuses for advertisements that dwarf the team's logo.  That practice should offend even someone who doesn't mind uniform ads on principle, simply because it compromises the team's own branding. The bedrock principle is that the only logo that belongs on a team's uniform is that of the team itself. 

Paul Lukas, who knows nothing about soccer, once referred to either a Chivas shirt or an América shirt, I don't remember which, as a "Bimbo jersey" (this was before the Philadelphia Union brought that embarassing advertisement to MLS); and it's hard to blame him, as that big gawking ad is the first thing that anyone looking at that shirt would see.

While the practice of ads on jerseys is inherently offensive, one can nevertheless recognise an example that is, given the prevailing standards, relatively tasteful.  The 2009-10 road kit of Manchester City looked like this:

 

Image result for manchester city 2009-10 change kit

 

If an ad is going to be there, then this is the way it should be presented, as subordinate to the the team's crest.

But that type of presentation is rare.  Man City currently uses a sash on its third kit; and this time the ad not only overwhelms the team's logo (as ads typically do on all football shirts), but it also mars the sash by cutting right through it.

 

Image result for manchester city 2018-19


To defend this is to exhibit symptoms of having been brainwashed.

 

I realise that I tend to get worked up about this topic.  But the visual culture means a lot to me (which is why I am on this board in the first place); and so its degradation really cheeses me off.  The best way that I can express this is by means of a lament that I have made a few times before.

 

I ask you to close your eyes and think of Magic Johnson.   What do you see in your mind?   You see him wearing a shirt with the word "Lakers" on it.  Think of Tom Seaver.  You see him dressed in a uniform bearing the word "Mets".  

Now think of David Beckham.  What word do you see this time?  "Sharp".  "Herbalife".  Think of Thierry Henry.  What you see is "O2".

 

And that is the point of these ads.  What these companies are really buying is not space on a team's shirt, but space in our very memories.  This practice represents a particularly insidious form of pollution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for the 3 versions of uniforms for all teams...the Major, League, and Baseball editions of uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

I can't wait for the 3 versions of uniforms for all teams...the Major, League, and Baseball editions of uniforms.

Three would be a reduction for most teams.

 

Thanks to the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, etc., I don't foresee the death of home and road designations like in the NBA.  I just cannot fathom the Yankees in gray at home hosting the Red Sox in white. 

 

Looking at the NFL and NBA takeovers, some possibilities might include:

  • More one-year uniforms...maybe even using the title "earned" for teams from the previous year's postseason.  
  • Maybe in place of "City" uniforms, they'll have "historic" fauxback type gimmicks.
  • One or two teams with a very "Nike" overhaul like the Seahawks and Bucs.  Maybe the Rockies?  Mariners?  D-Backs?

 

I think Nike's NBA takeover is much, much worse than its NFL takeover.  If I turn on a random NBA game, I frequently need extra looks to determine the teams or who's at home.  Teams too frequently dress in colors that have nothing to do with them, white vs. dark is not an indicator of who's at home, it's just kind of a mess.  The NFL takeover has been more of a mixed bag.  I think MLB will be more NFL-like, though the number of games could lead them to take step in the NBA direction.  But I really don't think you'll see white being worn by the road team (nor gray by the home team) and I am hopeful that we won't see too many non-team color combos like a purple Twins "Prince" uniform or a silver Pirates "Steel City" uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least soccer teams can use the no commercials excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 12:10 PM, OnWis97 said:

I don't expect everyone to be as outraged as I am about advertisements on the uniforms.  But I'm surprised whenever anyone thinks it's a positive or even neutral to put them on.  

 

In my opinion it cannot be done "tastefully."  Any logo, including manufacturer logos, is distasteful.  Some are not as distasteful.  The current ad on the sleeve of MLB jerseys is distasteful...but it just happens to be so difficult to see that it barely registers.  Swooshes on NFL sleeves?  A bit more distasteful. The more that it's done the more distasteful it gets.  The NBA definitely crossed a new line with its corporate ads.  I expect the rest to follow suit.

 

But even on this board some people are OK with it or even prefer it.  I don't get it.  Now the Celtics share their brand with GE.  And that photo above?  I was able to recognize that Sounders logo, but they really aren't putting the team out there very well.  But obviously the cost/benefit improves when teams water their brands down and share their "billboards" (i.e., the uniforms their players are wearing) with un-related corporations.

Since atleast the early 90s, NFL jerseys have featured their manufacturer logo. Russel athletic. Apex. Wilson. Starter etc. It was always a very small after thought. Reebok took over and had that on every shoulder. Now Nike. 

 

I guess we get used to it. The swoosh on the side alone now is not so bad. But I guess I accept it after all these years. 

 

In the NBA until just very recently, there have zero manufacturer logos and the NBA logo was on the front of the jersey. You had your Nike, Reebok, puma, starter all being made at the same time. That's the NBA at it's purest form. I think you'd have to go to the 80s to find the NFL in that form. Now the NBA has the worst of it all. I do agree. Manufacturer logo and a corporate ad with the NBA logo barely visible. They didn't make this move subtle at all. 

 

I guess where I disagree is, I don't consider manufacturer logos as advertisements. The NFL kind of conditioned me that way. Now an actual corporate sponsor with no actual relationship to the team,font,city? Yeah that's some crap. 

 

The NBA went from pure perfection with NBA logo only, to a triple effect of bad. The NFL and MLB are still at stage one. I hope that continues. Manufacturer logo in not so obvious spots. The MLB with the swoosh on the chest may change all that. Shoulder placement like majestic does is ideal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MattMill said:

The NBA went from pure perfection with NBA logo only, to a triple effect of bad. The NFL and MLB are still at stage one. I hope that continues. Manufacturer logo in not so obvious spots. ...

 

Nike is intentionally designing some uniforms to highlight and feature their logo - Seattle is the best example - considering how it's integrated perfectly into a highlighted container, and I'd argue that Tennessee and Jacksonville also fall into this category since the swoosh (which at least seems to be larger than RBK's logo) is the only thing featured on their sleeves, and is colored in a way that makes it look like a team mark.

 

You want a sports/lifestyle company ad in a "not so obvious spot", then put it above the NOB where the league logos currently reside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a nice baseball uniform. Nike will do just fine if teams keep control of their looks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

That’s a nice baseball uniform. Nike will do just fine if teams keep control of their looks. 

 

That template - most notably the sleeves - is brutal.  Look how awful the intersection of three pinstriped panels is.  There's nothing wrong with standard raglan style - seams for seam's sake (SFSS?) needs to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jersey looks super dark. Is it an away jersey? 

I like the size of the Nike logo. If it can stay that small without the chrome, it’s be fine. 

I don’t understand the sleeves. Why are they the way they are? 

Another issues I have are the vents in the back of the jersey. They’re so glaring and awful to look at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jersey like that can pass for NCAA but anything resembling it would be atrocious in MLB. The template, the swoosh, the placement of the Big 10 logo.

 

I don't want to sound like a stuffy traditionalist, but I genuinely feel that if that jersey style were imposed upon an MLB team, the Nike branding would overpower the team branding. It's going to be a sad day when field worn attire littered with swooshes screams NIKE more than RED SOX or YANKEES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.