MLS Kits 2022

[PaleVermilion81]

Can I rank them all last place due to stupid names? 

[WBeltz]

I think most of them are pretty good to OK, some of them have great ideas, but I feel like lack full creativeness.

 

My top five:

 

1. Vancouver

2. Charlotte Home

3. Philadelphia & Portland

4. Atlanta

5. NYRB

 

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

What a stupid poll you have to drag all 28 teams!

 

My top 5:

1. Portland

2. Orlando

3. RSL

4. Vancouver

5. Miami

[PaleVermilion81]

Sigh, this Twitter thread makes me annoyed. So many people saying the black is the best MNUFC has ever looked. So many people being wrong.

 

https://twitter.com/DummyRunPod/status/1495484627426885638

 

[WBeltz]

1 minute ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

Sigh, this Twitter thread makes me annoyed. So many people saying the black is the best MNUFC has ever looked. So many people being wrong.

 

https://twitter.com/DummyRunPod/status/1495484627426885638

 

I will say it looks really nice & sharp. But it isn't the best they've looked.  The wing kits are probably the best look they;ve had. I have the 2018 striped kit and that's a personal favorite to me. But the black isn't the best in MLS history for them. 

[TenaciousG]

2 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

Sigh, this Twitter thread makes me annoyed. So many people saying the black is the best MNUFC has ever looked. So many people being wrong.

 

https://twitter.com/DummyRunPod/status/1495484627426885638

 

Agreed. The wings ARE MNUFC, it’s just too bad the insanely stupid Adidas shoulder stripes distract from the look.

 

Black is dumb. They should really try to own a more anthracite or charcoal gray if they want better contrast with white.

[PaleVermilion81]

3 minutes ago, WBeltz said:

I will say it looks really nice & sharp. But it isn't the best they've looked.  The wing kits are probably the best look they;ve had. I have the 2018 striped kit and that's a personal favorite to me. But the black isn't the best in MLS history for them. 

 

For me the only thing the black is better than are the 2 white kits. This is the black version of the white kit. No personality to it and nothing about it says Minnesota United to me. 

[Stu-BallsOmnicorp]

41 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

For me the only thing the black is better than are the 2 white kits. This is the black version of the white kit. No personality to it and nothing about it says Minnesota United to me. 

That's pretty much my feeling too. The new black kit is pretty meh in my mind not bad per se but it doesn't really have enough personality to merit calling it good either. I guess some people like the black due to the "Minnesota black and blue" chat, but at this point I'd say gray should be the team's home color and it'd be nice if they committed to incorporating the wing into their home kits.

[seasaltvanilla]

 

Wing, dark gray, light blue numbers. This is the baseline that all Loon kits should start from.

[ATLJ]

This isn't directed at any one team, but I think MLS teams should focus more on cultivating brand identities with unique design elements incorporated into the uniform design that permeate through out the kit design year after year.  Soccer has a rich history of teams with stripes, sashes, contrasting halves / sleeves, etc. and there are teams, such as MUNFC, that have a unique mark that should be capitalized on more often and its a shame MLS (and the teams) don't lean into this.  While the 2022 kits definitely are a lot better than the all white kit fiasco, you're still left with a lot of solid color kits, many with matching shirts and shorts, as opposed to contrasting, which further contributes to a "blandness".  This isn't to imply teams can't change things up once they've established "a look", but I think its unfortunate teams such as DC have strayed from unique indefinable markers and other teams trot out monocolored kits while historic design elements are ripe for the taking.

 

My Top Five: 

 

Vancouver

Portland

Orlando

Salt Lake

Dallas

[Digby]

Also interesting that the old "light/dark" thing seems to have gone out the window. Columbus are back to having a yellow kit and a grey/white kit, no black. The same orange is "dark" for NYCFC but "light" for Cincy. 

[DrJack]

I'm back once again... trying to get teams to stop doing stupid things with their crests.

You designed a badge, use it. 

 

Imagine if the Packers wrote "Green Bay Packers" around that G logo on their helmet.  This is the soccer equivalent and it's terrible.

[vtgco]

22 minutes ago, DrJack said:

I'm back once again... trying to get teams to stop doing stupid things with their crests.

You designed a badge, use it. 

 

Imagine if the Packers wrote "Green Bay Packers" around that G logo on their helmet.  This is the soccer equivalent and it's terrible.

At least to an outsider/non-Crew fan, the poorly tacked-on text kinda feels like them telling their fans "See! We ~t o t a l l y~ kept the name for you! Aren't you ~p r o u d~ of us??!!1!??"

[Digby]

Maybe it's a situation like the new Revs logo, where the club will also use the wordmark-free version wherever possible but seems to believe that the wordmarked version is what needs to go on the kits. Though again, I point to Chicago. 

 

In this case, losing the words really improves the logo; the proportions go from strange to passable.

[4_tattoos]

Either way the new Crew logo sucks. Think they'll pull a Chicago Fire move and quickly retire it? Because they should. I get they wanted to move on from the Precourt era roundel, but gawdam was the end result a major downgrade.

[WBeltz]

You know, I think I’d be a little less disappointed in Minnesotas primary’s if they used the repeating star on the graphics they’ve been putting out on it as a whole pattern. It really would’ve looked a little more interesting than faint pinstripes 

 

 

[PaleVermilion81]

2 hours ago, WBeltz said:

You know, I think I’d be a little less disappointed in Minnesotas primary’s if they used the repeating star on the graphics they’ve been putting out on it as a whole pattern. It really would’ve looked a little more interesting than faint pinstripes 

 

 

 

Also isn't it "Presidents' Day"? 

[dannykraft]

6 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

Either way the new Crew logo sucks. Think they'll pull a Chicago Fire move and quickly retire it? Because they should. I get they wanted to move on from the Precourt era roundel, but gawdam was the end result a major downgrade.

I'll be honest it's growing on me but still the roundel is so much better. 

[MJWalker45]

20 hours ago, DrJack said:

I'm back once again... trying to get teams to stop doing stupid things with their crests.

You designed a badge, use it. 

 

Imagine if the Packers wrote "Green Bay Packers" around that G logo on their helmet.  This is the soccer equivalent and it's terrible.

The ownership shot itself in the foot by trying to change the name and this was a workaround. Even the original logo had Columbus above the pennant so it was still going to look like this at some level. Since the way that badges are placed on uniforms doesn't require everything sit inside a stitched badge, this isn't the worst thing that could happen. but then again an even easier method would have been to leave the original 1996 badge alone.  Also, it's not unusual to have soccer teams spell out their name around the badge when the badge only features a letter or a symbol. The placement was the only thing that's different.

 

[MJWalker45]

9 hours ago, dannykraft said:

I'll be honest it's growing on me but still the roundel is so much better. 

The 1996 badge was better than both of them. Someone did a concept where the current Crew wordmark was placed inside a mockup of the bridge over the pennant.