MLS kits 2023

[MJWalker45]

44 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Couldn't disagree more with this. The official, formal badges in MLS are too busy -- you don't need words identifying the team name when the symbol itself should be enough. Every MLS club could simplify the badge on its kits, except for Portland, which already does it. 

Some teams still need the full logo,  Sporting KC, Charlotte, and Atlanta United fall under this too.  I also think Sporting needs an intertwined KC rather than the SC that's on there now. I know it means soccer club, but it doesn't mean anything on the logo itself.  For Atlanta, if you had just the A on a shirt it'd look pretty weird. 

Houston could take just their monogram and go in the direction of Rangers for inspiration. 

New England are also set up for this as well, and I think going forward the only time the badge on the left needs to be used is for graphics packages and social media posts. And perhaps, not even then.

 

 

[upperV03]

9 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I also think Sporting needs an intertwined KC rather than the SC that's on there now. I know it means soccer club, but it doesn't mean anything on the logo itself.  

 

The SC actually stands for “Sporting Club”. I’ve always hated it, it absolutely would be better if it had KC instead.

[Digby]

8 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

New England are also set up for this as well, and I think going forward the only time the badge on the left needs to be used is for graphics packages and social media posts. And perhaps, not even then.

 

 

New England has basically used the bunting-R only everywhere they can -- social graphics, merchandise, the big sign on their training facility in Foxboro. I think it was in the Athletic where I read an article about the rebrand where a club exec basically said that they only used the full version, with the white roundel and full club name, on the jerseys because the league made them. If LAFC are only using the partial logo now, then either the league changed the rules or not everyone in the league is on the same page. Either explanation is highly plausible, tbh.

[gosioux76]

15 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Some teams still need the full logo,  Sporting KC, Charlotte, and Atlanta United fall under this too.  I also think Sporting needs an intertwined KC rather than the SC that's on there now. I know it means soccer club, but it doesn't mean anything on the logo itself.  For Atlanta, if you had just the A on a shirt it'd look pretty weird. 

 

 

 

 

 

Spot on for New England and Houston.  And I also agree with you on KC -- their logo isn't great on its own, and doesn't lend itself to simplification. 

 

I don't recognize that Atlanta crest, though. This is what I've known as their primary crest, and it could easily be simplified just by removing the words and leaving the A inside a thinner-bordered roundel. 

 

Charlotte, too, can easily be simplified by using only the crown or leaning on its ligature mark, which is reminiscent of Chelsea in the '90s. 

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Spot on for New England and Houston.  And I also agree with you on KC -- their logo isn't great on its own, and doesn't lend itself to simplification. 

 

I don't recognize that Atlanta crest, though. This is what I've known as their primary crest, and it could easily be simplified just by removing the words and leaving the A inside a thinner-bordered roundel. 

 

Charlotte, too, can easily be simplified by using only the crown or leaning on its ligature mark, which is reminiscent of Chelsea in the '90s. 

The Atlanta  logo is a fan made one, but it shows that the A by itself is not very strong.  That Charlotte logo could work, but I'd probably add the crown to it.

17 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

The SC actually stands for “Sporting Club”. I’ve always hated it, it absolutely would be better if it had KC instead.

Awww! So it's even more confusing with Sporting Sporting Club on the crest. 

[aawagner011]

Yeah, the Sporting KC crest is aesthetically pleasing enough, pretty harmless but nothing remarkable, but my god is it beyond stupid. You call yourself “Sporting KC” and yet the badge reads “Kansas City Sporting Sporting Club.” Which genius thought that up? Why is the emphasis on “SC?” Are they even a sporting club? What other sports does the club offer? I see nothing other than soccer on their website. Their wiki page mentions they wished to start rugby and lacrosse teams. It says they never formed a lacrosse team and had a loose affiliation with a rugby club but the rugby team was never under the Sporting KC structure. Clubs like Barcelona and Bayern can make claims to being “sporting clubs” because they have basketball, handball, and even chess teams!

[gosioux76]

34 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

Yeah, the Sporting KC crest is aesthetically pleasing enough, pretty harmless but nothing remarkable, but my god is it beyond stupid. You call yourself “Sporting KC” and yet the badge reads “Kansas City Sporting Sporting Club.” Which genius thought that up? Why is the emphasis on “SC?” Are they even a sporting club? What other sports does the club offer? I see nothing other than soccer on their website. Their wiki page mentions they wished to start rugby and lacrosse teams. It says they never formed a lacrosse team and had a loose affiliation with a rugby club but the rugby team was never under the Sporting KC structure. Clubs like Barcelona and Bayern can make claims to being “sporting clubs” because they have basketball, handball, and even chess teams!

 

I find the name kind of silly, too, though I don't think we need to hold KC to the same standard as European "sporting clubs" that are more true to the name.

 

It just becomes a slippery slope into that same cesspool in which we regurgitate how Real Salt Lake isn't tied to royalty and how the franchises in D.C., Minnesota and Atlanta don't represent the mergers of two separate clubs the way the Uniteds in Manchester, Newcastle, etc., do. 

 

MLS has long been doing this sort-of euro cosplaying with its branding and I've come to terms with it. 

 

The Sporting KC brand is awkward absent of that part of the argument. 

[seasaltvanilla]

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Yup, that's the new template this year. 

If this was a light gold it could look so much better. Right now there's a huge green tint on these that makes them look pretty dingy. 

 

 

 

MLS please keep the armpit side panels far away. Just because it's a different panel on the shirt doesn't mean you have to highlight it in a different color.

[spartacat_12]

30 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

It just becomes a slippery slope into that same cesspool in which we regurgitate how Real Salt Lake isn't tied to royalty and how the franchises in D.C., Minnesota and Atlanta don't represent the mergers of two separate clubs the way the Uniteds in Manchester, Newcastle, etc., do. 

 

MLS has long been doing this sort-of euro cosplaying with its branding and I've come to terms with it. 

 

I think Minnesota gets a pass since they are uniting both of the Twin Cities. Also DC is the capital of the "United" States, so that works as well. 

 

Real Salt Lake is inexcusable though.

[gosioux76]

3 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I think Minnesota gets a pass since they are uniting both of the Twin Cities. Also DC is the capital of the "United" States, so that works as well. 

 

Real Salt Lake is inexcusable though.

Good effort. That’s some serious calisthenics in justifying those “Uniteds.”

[ATLJ]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

Good effort. That’s some serious calisthenics in justifying those “Uniteds.”

The Manchester United you reference was purely made up, because they liked the name.

[WestCoastBias]

Has LAFC already run out of ideas for kits???

[VampyrRabbit]

7 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Real Salt Lake is inexcusable though.

The highest point in Utah is called Kings Peak and the second highest is South Kings Peak, so if the team want to justify that name, I suppose they could always retcon it so the team was named after those Mountains.

 

8 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

 

MLS please keep the armpit side panels far away. Just because it's a different panel on the shirt doesn't mean you have to highlight it in a different color.

So far, of the released and leaked kits we have seen photos of, St Louis is the only one with contrasting armpit panels. Hopefully it stays that way.

42 minutes ago, WestCoastBias said:

Has LAFC already run out of ideas for kits???

To be fair, the colours for the new change kit are original and they did strip down their badge for it, so they did come up with some new ideas. Whether they were good ones is up for debate.

[Kevin W.]

3 hours ago, ATLJ said:

The Manchester United you reference was purely made up, because they liked the name.

Well, you could argue that it was born from the union of the four businessmen who invested in the club and saved it from dissolution.

[MJWalker45]

8 hours ago, ATLJ said:

The Manchester United you reference was purely made up, because they liked the name.

It's true. And it's really annoying to have to say Newton Heath and Lancashire Railway vs Arsenal. 

[Digby]

7 hours ago, VampyrRabbit said:

So far, of the released and leaked kits we have seen photos of, St Louis is the only one with contrasting armpit panels. Hopefully it stays that way.

8 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

The Revolution kit that leaked bizarrely early months ago appears like it'll have navy armpit panels on an otherwise white-with-red shirt, so I'd expect plenty more.

 

[hereandthere]

4 hours ago, Digby said:

 

The Revolution kit that leaked bizarrely early months ago appears like it'll have navy armpit panels on an otherwise white-with-red shirt, so I'd expect plenty more.

 

 

I think most kits will have differently coloured armpit panels. As the St. Louis one shows, this is one of the details completely missing in the replica version, and the recently leaked ones are all replicas (therefore, without coloured panels even if the authentic one will have them).

Edited December 23, 2022 by hereandthere

[BC985]

On the topic of simpler logos, this logo is already being used at CITYPARK. Hopefully this is the uniform badge in 2-3 years. 

 

 

 

I understand people thinking Houston should just use the interlocking HD on their uniform, but I think the hexagon with a lightening bolt would be unique.

 

 

 

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, BC985 said:

On the topic of simpler logos, this logo is already being used at CITYPARK. Hopefully this is the uniform badge in 2-3 years. 

 

 

 

This word-less mark has become increasingly popular with the team. It's all over the building, including on the seats, and is popping up more in merchandise. It's becoming clear that this symbol is now instantly recognizable, making the words unnecessary. 

[harney]

Would be a hell of a lot better without the SC at the bottom however. Just clutters it up.