MLS Kits 2021

[KitLeakBoi]

Nashville Away kit 

 

Source: https://clubcountryusa.com/2021/02/20/the-nashville-sc-2021-away-kit-is-here/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

 

EDIT: page hadn't refreshed so I didn't see it was already posted. 

[aawagner011]

I’m getting a bit tired of MLS kits using a base template, slapping a sublimated pattern on the front, and calling it a day. What happened to stripes, hoops, contrasting sleeves, pinstriping, you know, real design? Everything feels so generic when the answer is always a faint sublimated pattern.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

8 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

I’m getting a bit tired of MLS kits using a base template, slapping a sublimated pattern on the front, and calling it a day. What happened to stripes, hoops, contrasting sleeves, pinstriping, you know, real design? Everything feels so generic when the answer is always a faint sublimated pattern.

 

I'm with you. Some of them are fine by themselves, but it all looks so bland when they're all put together.

 

Wasn't that long ago the league did stuff like this:

or this:

Or even this:

 

Those are all printed-on patterns, but they at least look cool and interesting. And you can actually see them.

 

[BC985]

Nashville looks fine to me. They’re entering their second season and the kit is a club color. It may be plain, but they’re building the club identity. That’s ok by me. 

[sky1324]

I do like the back element with the sound wave, that's a neat touch and I like it. The front is kinda boring though, certainly doesn't give me much hope for CLTFC.

[BC985]

23 minutes ago, QCS said:

I do like the back element with the sound wave, that's a neat touch and I like it. The front is kinda boring though, certainly doesn't give me much hope for CLTFC.

I guess if they wanted to get creative, they could have placed that sound wave in an offset hoop formation on the front of the kit, but it’s fine the way it is. 

[upperV03]

I had a Twitter exchange with Merritt Paulson earlier, and several noteworthy things came out of it. First, he hinted that the Timbers’ new primary kit will be unveiled this week:

Next, he confirmed that the Timbers’ 2022 secondary kit will not be white, and also that this year’s new primary kit will not have any white in it:

Based on that, it seems increasingly likely that the new primary will be reminiscent of the 14/15 third kit and 17/18 primaries. As for the 2022 secondary, my money is on it being yellow/athletic gold.

[WarriorFight]

Getting strong Umbro vibes off that Nashville kit. I dig it though. 

 

Just wish they had swapped their yellow kit because I thought that was much more in need of changing than their navy kit last year.

[WarriorFight]

10 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'm with you. Some of them are fine by themselves, but it all looks so bland when they're all put together.

 

Wasn't that long ago the league did stuff like this:

or this:

Or even this:

 

Those are all printed-on patterns, but they at least look cool and interesting. And you can actually see them.

 

 

I personally don't like the RSL kit because it looks like a semi-pro kit, to me, no offense to those who like it I can understand why one might, I just don't. 

 

The latter two are fresh as hell, especially SKC. Which leads me to ask...

 

 Is the trend that pretty much everyone has been piling on, of kits in MLS becoming a bit more rote, because Adidas isn't coming to the table with as bold designs, or because the League doesn't want bold designs? Is it both, or one more than the other? Because I know Adidas pitches several kits to clubs, usually, for them to sign off on. At least with DC a year or two ago that Athletic story came out saying they had a Marble kit and a Cherry Blossom kit that both got rejected by the club. So is it Adidas not bringing their game, is it the league setting stricter criteria, or is it on the clubs themselves making boring choices, or a combination of all three?

 

Cause LAFC have yet to have a really, really good kit by my standards and it'd be helpful to know if that was coming from Adidas, the league, or the club itself. And both of the DC kits, the Marble and cherry blossom ones, that leaked in that Athletic story looked dope as hell.

 

Just I always see people pile on Adidas but the clubs and the league are the ones signing off on the kits and setting the criteria. Hence me asking, I know there are people far more well-versed in the specifics and underlying facts of MLS kit design and selection who post in here on the reg. 

[EricSpratt]

54 minutes ago, WarriorFight said:

 

Is the trend that pretty much everyone has been piling on, of kits in MLS becoming a bit more rote, because Adidas isn't coming to the table with as bold designs, or because the League doesn't want bold designs? Is it both, or one more than the other? Because I know Adidas pitches several kits to clubs, usually, for them to sign off on. At least with DC a year or two ago that Athletic story came out saying they had a Marble kit and a Cherry Blossom kit that both got rejected by the club. So is it Adidas not bringing their game, is it the league setting stricter criteria, or is it on the clubs themselves making boring choices, or a combination of all three?

At the end of the day, the decision lies with each club's front office. Adidas and MLS have their restrictions, yes, but this doesn't mean that every team has to go with all-white or all-black options. Clubs are just taking safer routes because, often times, it's a safer bet and may likely sell better. Jersey nuts like all of us may go crazy over it but, in the end, money talks. Thankfully, boring kits may be having an effect on sales (considering that apparently only Atlanta broke the 100k barrier to get a third this year). I hope MLS can return to some of the bolder, more distinct designs of the past eventually but, until then, I guess Philly is our ray of hope.

[WarriorFight]

1 hour ago, EricSpratt said:

At the end of the day, the decision lies with each club's front office. Adidas and MLS have their restrictions, yes, but this doesn't mean that every team has to go with all-white or all-black options. Clubs are just taking safer routes because, often times, it's a safer bet and may likely sell better. Jersey nuts like all of us may go crazy over it but, in the end, money talks. Thankfully, boring kits may be having an effect on sales (considering that apparently only Atlanta broke the 100k barrier to get a third this year). I hope MLS can return to some of the bolder, more distinct designs of the past eventually but, until then, I guess Philly is our ray of hope.

 

Agreed on Philly, their new away kit is flames.

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, WarriorFight said:

Just I always see people pile on Adidas but the clubs and the league are the ones signing off on the kits and setting the criteria. Hence me asking, I know there are people far more well-versed in the specifics and underlying facts of MLS kit design and selection who post in here on the reg. 

 

I know that with NYCFC, at least in the past, they've been setting the agenda.  They made the decision back in 2013 that they wanted to keep fairly simple, classic home kits and crazier change kits.  They are willing to experiment with bold patterns and different color palettes, but only on the change kits.   

[kmccarthy27]

On 2/20/2021 at 11:45 AM, upperV03 said:

Few more of this season’s travel hoodies:

 

I love seeing a Target logo on this, because I don't foresee a Target ever selling Adidas clothing. Interesting they went with it on the sleeve when the rest of the teams have it under the badge. 

[Digby]

Last year's show of same template, teamwear-level patterns, and even the same obnoxious collar was a pretty bad show for Adidas I thought. Even the worst excesses of Nike's weird NBA cut and the Reebok Edge allowed for more customization. I'd say all the stakeholders have had their successes and their failures in recent years. (Still curious what prompted teams like New England, Colorado and Portland to all ditch their seemingly successful runs of off-brand away kits around the same time last cycle.)

[upperV03]

New sleeve sponsor for the Galaxy:

And new front jersey sponsor for FCD:

[DG_ThenNowForever]

They both ditched MLMs for real(?) things. Good for them!

 

Honey is a completely different service than Bumble, but still fun to see both of those bee-based companies sponsoring LA's now two lesser-than franchises.

[upperV03]

3 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

They both ditched MLMs for real(?) things. Good for them!

 

Honey is a completely different service than Bumble, but still fun to see both of those bee-based companies sponsoring LA's now two lesser-than franchises.

Honey actually replaced Bumble as the Clippers’ jersey advertiser this year:

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 minute ago, upperV03 said:

Honey actually replaced Bumble as the Clippers’ jersey advertiser this year:

 

Oh wow. I had no idea. Good for them.

 

We're now tracking NBA sponsors like we do pro soccer. I knew it would happen.

[SFGiants58]

Oh, Honey.

 

Seeing this meme in its original context is strange.

[upperV03]

Teaser for Cincy’s new home kit:

Looks like it’ll be navy with alternating royal blue and orange pinstripes. That would fit in with their version of the kickoff creator t shirt, which has the royal and orange pinstripes inside the text: