MLS Kits, 2020

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

Honestly I kinda like the 2 year cycle for each jersey. Means the bad ones get replaced guaranteed.

 

I do too.   I don't want it to change, even though I'd be perfectly happy if NYCFC stuck with this shirt design forever.

[Digby]

The two shirt, two year thing is much better than the three shirt, one year cycle that the rest of the club world seems to have adopted, so I like that as well. Unfortunately it doesn’t wholly protect us from cycles of bad ideas instead of ideas that make sense, as the current leaks are showing.

[aawagner011]

Don’t want to get too far off topic but wanted to touch on that Bayern kit.

 

I’d argue that Bayern historically haven’t had “classic” kits in the way that Barcelona has the stripes, Celtic wears hoops, Real Madrid wears white, or Arsenal wears red with white sleeves.

 

Bayern has mixed it up so much and only recently does it feel like they are trying to permanently settle on all red and white. This is a club that has worn all red, red and white vertical stripes, red and white horizontal stripes, red and blue vertical stripes, the aforementioned red with white sleeves, red with navy sleeves, red with gray sleeves and gray shorts, and even a navy primary kit with a red chest stripe. They’ve often (same as Klinsmann era but red shorts) mixed and matched their shorts colors.

 

They’re a classic club but haven’t had that design that sticks like the other clubs I mentioned. After some pushback from supporters, they are now going to use primarily red and white only for their primary kits. All red has been a common kit for them over the years, but they are so quick to toss it out and come back to it years later. That’s changing the last few years but they aren’t an example I’d use as an immediately identifiable club.

[Digby]

I think that's true for most of Germany -- Dortmund has run through a similar cycle (sub out red and white for yellow and black), Wolfsburg rarely stays consistent in what shade of green they even use for their home kit, Leverkusen often alternates between red and black at home, etc.

 

Seems MLS is hewing more closely to that model, if any, and that's fine by me with a few exceptions (chiefly Chicago's white stripe, if you ask me). Results have varied, of course.

[WarriorFight]

7 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Don’t want to get too far off topic but wanted to touch on that Bayern kit.

 

I’d argue that Bayern historically haven’t had “classic” kits in the way that Barcelona has the stripes, Celtic wears hoops, Real Madrid wears white, or Arsenal wears red with white sleeves.

 

Bayern has mixed it up so much and only recently does it feel like they are trying to permanently settle on all red and white. This is a club that has worn all red, red and white vertical stripes, red and white horizontal stripes, red and blue vertical stripes, the aforementioned red with white sleeves, red with navy sleeves, red with gray sleeves and gray shorts, and even a navy primary kit with a red chest stripe. They’ve often (same as Klinsmann era but red shorts) mixed and matched their shorts colors.

 

They’re a classic club but haven’t had that design that sticks like the other clubs I mentioned. After some pushback from supporters, they are now going to use primarily red and white only for their primary kits. All red has been a common kit for them over the years, but they are so quick to toss it out and come back to it years later. That’s changing the last few years but they aren’t an example I’d use as an immediately identifiable club.

 

But you can always tell, despite the kit variation, that it's Bayern. 

 

Many teams wear green-and-white hoops, or stripes, or solid colors.

 

You look at Bayern, see the Telekom logo first, then the badge. It's always clearly Bayern.

 

I think most teams, if they did have "identifiable" styles, have bucked their own historical trends. In the case of Celtic, while the hoops are classic them, if I saw a random kit with green-and-white hoops, knowing there are so many clubs with a similar bit, my first thought would not be Celtic. Barcelona has blue-and-red checkers now, no longer the classic broad stripes.

 

Just saying, imo, it's a flawed argument. "Recognizable" is something that is entirely subjective and to what extent one recognizes anything is entirely based on what context they have, and there's nothing original under the sun. Green and white hoops, blue-and-red stripes, solid white, red base, white sleeves, none of these are super immediately identifiable unto themselves. They are associated with MANY clubs, no one club *owns* a look. It annoys me when people leverage this argument in MLS: realize that most European clubs have a century jump on establishing any sort of visual expectation for their kits, and looking at the kit history of these teams really is fascinating because, other than the fact that many of them looked VERY similar, is also that many of them look NOTHING like what the clubs wear now. Liverpool's original colors were blue, and now we're known as The Reds. *The* Reds.

 

MLS is 25 years old. This visual language of the kits, which itself is not more identifiable than a club's badge or even the sponsor they put on the kit, will settle once teams build a more comprehensive identity and that will just come with time. Trying to make it happen artificially is only going to alienate people, because someone will always be upset. Just because MLS is essentially a century behind should not count against it, and should not mean that we try to cram in 100 years of visual evolution and expectations associated with that into the space of the 25 that MLS has had on this earth.

[MJWalker45]

I think people's biggest issue last year was that everyone seemed to get white away kits. This year it's the "25th anniversary kit" which looks like nothing that was ever worn in the league. That limits these teams ability to stand out from each other, much less other leagues.

[Gothamite]

Is “standing out from other leagues” the goal?

 

Should that be the goal?  I’m skeptical. 
 

MLS clubs are not required to have white kits.  The Red Bulls don't have a white kit right now.  NYCFC has never had a white kit. 

[Digby]

5 hours ago, WarriorFight said:

 

But you can always tell, despite the kit variation, that it's Bayern. 

 

Many teams wear green-and-white hoops, or stripes, or solid colors.

 

You look at Bayern, see the Telekom logo first, then the badge. It's always clearly Bayern.

 

I think most teams, if they did have "identifiable" styles, have bucked their own historical trends. In the case of Celtic, while the hoops are classic them, if I saw a random kit with green-and-white hoops, knowing there are so many clubs with a similar bit, my first thought would not be Celtic. Barcelona has blue-and-red checkers now, no longer the classic broad stripes.

 

Just saying, imo, it's a flawed argument. "Recognizable" is something that is entirely subjective and to what extent one recognizes anything is entirely based on what context they have, and there's nothing original under the sun. Green and white hoops, blue-and-red stripes, solid white, red base, white sleeves, none of these are super immediately identifiable unto themselves. They are associated with MANY clubs, no one club *owns* a look. It annoys me when people leverage this argument in MLS: realize that most European clubs have a century jump on establishing any sort of visual expectation for their kits, and looking at the kit history of these teams really is fascinating because, other than the fact that many of them looked VERY similar, is also that many of them look NOTHING like what the clubs wear now. Liverpool's original colors were blue, and now we're known as The Reds. *The* Reds.

 

MLS is 25 years old. This visual language of the kits, which itself is not more identifiable than a club's badge or even the sponsor they put on the kit, will settle once teams build a more comprehensive identity and that will just come with time. Trying to make it happen artificially is only going to alienate people, because someone will always be upset. Just because MLS is essentially a century behind should not count against it, and should not mean that we try to cram in 100 years of visual evolution and expectations associated with that into the space of the 25 that MLS has had on this earth.

 

I think, in general, I agree with this ... with the exception that MLS is not just decades behind those classic clubs, but also faces the headwinds of the current era. Teams established in the early 20th century didn't have the concerns of merchandising, sponsorship, manufacturers building their own brands all fighting for precedence with each other and above any sort of effort to prioritize the visual language.

[Digby]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Is “standing out from other leagues” the goal?

 

Should that be the goal?  I’m skeptical. 
 

MLS clubs are not required to have white kits.  The Red Bulls don't have a white kit right now.  NYCFC has never had a white kit. 

 

I would say no, but I'd also say MLS stands out from other leagues right now in a bad way, at least kit-wise. The range of color schemes and badge designs is good, but there is a pretty significant element of MLS team brands feeling a bit samey, generic, paint-by-numbers-y. The single-manufacturer deal limits the uniform design diversity we see across most other soccer leagues around the world, and the clinging to design cycles limits the range of aesthetics that we see in other American sports leagues (where you have trendy teams, classic teams, awkwardly dated teams from in-between, etc.)

[njdevs7]

I'd argue that since MLS is still young and growing, its even MORE important to establish an iconic look. You want your ream to be recognizable. You want casual fans to turn on the game and know right away who's playing. 

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, njdevs7 said:

I'd argue that since MLS is still young and growing, its even MORE important to establish an iconic look. You want your ream to be recognizable. You want casual fans to turn on the game and know right away who's playing. 

If teams kept uniforms as long as MLB, NFL and NHL teams I would agree. Sincesoccer teams swap out new uniforms every one to two years, the only thing that tends to remain the same is the badge. Even the colors tend to change over time. Columbus' yellow has changed slightly over the last 25 years. Manchester United's shade of red for their uniforms has changed significantly at least 4 times in the last 25 years. Columbus stands out in MLS as the all yellow team, but not every MLS team stands out as clearly as they do.

[Gothamite]

40 minutes ago, njdevs7 said:

I'd argue that since MLS is still young and growing, its even MORE important to establish an iconic look. You want your ream to be recognizable. You want casual fans to turn on the game and know right away who's playing. 

 

That's about color scheme more than anything else, though.  Not the minor details to be found on kits.

[WarriorFight]

4 hours ago, Digby said:

 

I think, in general, I agree with this ... with the exception that MLS is not just decades behind those classic clubs, but also faces the headwinds of the current era. Teams established in the early 20th century didn't have the concerns of merchandising, sponsorship, manufacturers building their own brands all fighting for precedence with each other and above any sort of effort to prioritize the visual language.

 

Fair play with your point there. It is a different world now so there are different desires. I guess some of my point was that artificially trying to hit the "iconic" level of design artificially will get people rolling their eyes just as much as them trying to do new things.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's about color scheme more than anything else, though.  Not the minor details to be found on kits.

 

Seattle is green shirts, blue shorts and has been since the MLS launch. They'll wear green shirts on the road sometimes, but they've otherwise been incredibly consistent in a way that reinforces their brand.

 

It also helps that no other team is in green/blue, so outside of Portland, they generally don't clash.

 

(And even when they did do green/green, it wasn't the absolute worst. Just kind of the worst:

)

[hawk36]

34 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

Seattle is green shirts, blue shorts and has been since the MLS launch. They'll wear green shirts on the road sometimes, but they've otherwise been incredibly consistent in a way that reinforces their brand.

 

It also helps that no other team is in green/blue, so outside of Portland, they generally don't clash.

 

(And even when they did do green/green, it wasn't the absolute worst. Just kind of the worst:

)

That matchup is inexcusable. Both teams have white kits, they should never be allowed to do this ever again. 

[PaleVermilion81]

4 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

That matchup is inexcusable. Both teams have white kits, they should never be allowed to do this ever again. 

 

Only Portland has a white kit, but yes, it shouldn't have happened because of that fact alone. 

[MJWalker45]

11 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

Only Portland has a white kit, but yes, it shouldn't have happened because of that fact alone. 

this is why it's annoying that teams have to prove they can sell X amount of third jerseys if they want to get them. That's just dumb. How many kits do Mexican teams run through in a calendar year, across two half seasons? 

[aawagner011]

11 hours ago, WarriorFight said:

But you can always tell, despite the kit variation, that it's Bayern. 

 

Many teams wear green-and-white hoops, or stripes, or solid colors.

 

You look at Bayern, see the Telekom logo first, then the badge. It's always clearly Bayern.

 

I think most teams, if they did have "identifiable" styles, have bucked their own historical trends. In the case of Celtic, while the hoops are classic them, if I saw a random kit with green-and-white hoops, knowing there are so many clubs with a similar bit, my first thought would not be Celtic. Barcelona has blue-and-red checkers now, no longer the classic broad stripes.

 

Just saying, imo, it's a flawed argument. "Recognizable" is something that is entirely subjective and to what extent one recognizes anything is entirely based on what context they have, and there's nothing original under the sun. Green and white hoops, blue-and-red stripes, solid white, red base, white sleeves, none of these are super immediately identifiable unto themselves. They are associated with MANY clubs, no one club *owns* a look. It annoys me when people leverage this argument in MLS: realize that most European clubs have a century jump on establishing any sort of visual expectation for their kits, and looking at the kit history of these teams really is fascinating because, other than the fact that many of them looked VERY similar, is also that many of them look NOTHING like what the clubs wear now. Liverpool's original colors were blue, and now we're known as The Reds. *The* Reds.

 

MLS is 25 years old. This visual language of the kits, which itself is not more identifiable than a club's badge or even the sponsor they put on the kit, will settle once teams build a more comprehensive identity and that will just come with time. Trying to make it happen artificially is only going to alienate people, because someone will always be upset. Just because MLS is essentially a century behind should not count against it, and should not mean that we try to cram in 100 years of visual evolution and expectations associated with that into the space of the 25 that MLS has had on this earth.

The original comment was that Bayern looked weird in an Arsenal-esque design. I was just pointing out that it really wasn’t that weird given how often they’ve changed styles. I was comparing them to clubs that have stuck with the same looks for decades and was saying that while they’re a classic club, their kits haven’t really stuck with one look forever. I won’t get farther off topic, but that’s the only point I was making.

[hawk36]

4 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

Only Portland has a white kit, but yes, it shouldn't have happened because of that fact alone. 

If I'm not mistaken this is the Sounders' current white kit. Although it doesn't have the horrible Zulilly logo so maybe they've gone to just the Rave Green, and Black kits. 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Yep -- the Sounders lost that white shirt for the 19 season when they added the Nightfall kit. And next season, the dumb camo green will be replaced with hopefully something awesome.

 

It seems like you should be able to get that white shirt on a discount...but not yet! Or at least not what I'm willing to pay.