2023-24 International Club Soccer Kits

[pepis21]

1 hour ago, VampyrRabbit said:

2026 is when the ban comes into effect.

 

And only on front of the jersey. Sleeve will still be allow.

[VampyrRabbit]

36 minutes ago, Digby said:

That new Villa crest just looks like a recolored Chelsea to me. Old one wasn't great but at least there was character to it.

The new Villa crest is an update of the roundel the team used from 1973 untill 1992, the current Chelsea crest was introduced in 2005 as part of their centenary season. The two have lions and are roundels with the name at the top, but the similarities end there.

 

The lion, the font are quite different, the Chelsea crest has roses and footballs, and the Chelsea lion is holding a staff while turning it's head to look to the east.

Here are the two crests side by side in greyscale

So no, it's not a recoloured Chelsea crest, not even close.

[Digby]

Nah, it's pretty close.

[cajunaggie08]

14 hours ago, VampyrRabbit said:

The new Villa crest is an update of the roundel the team used from 1973 untill 1992, the current Chelsea crest was introduced in 2005 as part of their centenary season. The two have lions and are roundels with the name at the top, but the similarities end there.

 

The lion, the font are quite different, the Chelsea crest has roses and footballs, and the Chelsea lion is holding a staff while turning it's head to look to the east.

Here are the two crests side by side in greyscale

So no, it's not a recoloured Chelsea crest, not even close.

Its a lion in a roundel with a the club name on top. Yea, its pretty damned close.

[MJWalker45]

14 hours ago, VampyrRabbit said:

The new Villa crest is an update of the roundel the team used from 1973 untill 1992, the current Chelsea crest was introduced in 2005 as part of their centenary season. The two have lions and are roundels with the name at the top, but the similarities end there.

 

The lion, the font are quite different, the Chelsea crest has roses and footballs, and the Chelsea lion is holding a staff while turning it's head to look to the east.

Here are the two crests side by side in greyscale

So no, it's not a recoloured Chelsea crest, not even close.

 

1 hour ago, Digby said:

Nah, it's pretty close.

It gives the appearance of being an inferior copy of the Chelsea badge in new colors, like when supporter groups make their own badges instead of just using the official club badge. 

[GriffinM6]

27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

 

It gives the appearance of being an inferior copy of the Chelsea badge in new colors, like when supporter groups make their own badges instead of just using the official club badge. 

This is actually really cool. It's easily recognizable as a Man U supporter group and has localized iconography without taking away from the identity of the club it supports. 

[VampyrRabbit]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

 

It gives the appearance of being an inferior copy of the Chelsea badge in new colors, like when supporter groups make their own badges instead of just using the official club badge.

Except that Aston Villa had a roundel in 1973, years before Chelsea did, they used the lion over half a century before Chelsea did, there are no roses or footballs on the Villa badge, and the design of the lion of both clubs is quite different and one of them is carrying a staff.

So to call the new Villa crest an inferior copy or has the appearance of one, when there are a lot of differences, is a pile of bulls*** bigger than the pile of money Chelsea spent in the last transfer window.

[MJWalker45]

2 minutes ago, VampyrRabbit said:

Except that Aston Villa had a roundel in 1973, years before Chelsea did, they used the lion over half a century before Chelsea did, there are no roses or footballs on the Villa badge, and the design of the lion of both clubs is quite different and one of them is carrying a staff.

So to call the new Villa crest an inferior copy or has the appearance of one, when there are a lot of differences, is a pile of bulls*** bigger than the pile of money Chelsea spent in the last transfer window.

In my opinion, and others, it's inferior and looks like a copy. Yelling about it won't change our opinion of that new badge. 

[Jaffa]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Villa's crest is a copy, but a staff-toting, roundel-dwelling lion first appeared on Chelsea's jerseys back in the early 1960s...

 

 

However, we all know that proper, serious football clubs eschew lions and feature a tiger on their crest - today Hull City have finally confirmed that Kappa are the clubs new 'technical partner' after the best part of a decade with Umbro. New kits to be officially 'revealed soon'.

 

[aawagner011]

It’s not about whether they briefly used a roundel at one point in time. Their badge history has been inconsistent, anyways.

 

 

The problem is that they had a very identifiable and distinct badge (between the crest shape, colors, and abbreviation) and reverted back to the cliche roundel that feels so generic and could be any number of clubs now.

 

The graphic above has plenty of sources of inspiration between the shape of the shield and the stripes.

 

On a primarily claret shirt, the old sky blue and yellow badge gave it some much needed contrast. The details were highly visible from a distance.

 

 

The new crest loses its uniqueness and the details are lost at a distance. The colors of the badge are heavier on claret at the expense of sky blue and yellow.

 

 

Overall, it just feels so much more generic. A badge is more than how it operates as a standalone logo. It’s how it works on digital platforms and social. It’s how the badge works in the context of the shirt and I feel like the new badge fails in that regard.

[VampyrRabbit]

On 2023-06-23 at 7:57 PM, Jaffa said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say Villa's crest is a copy, but a staff-toting, roundel-dwelling lion first appeared on Chelsea's jerseys back in the early 1960s...

 

 

That logo wasn't quite a roundel, it was two scrolls touching. It was close though, and it did look like a roundel unless you were standing close

 

 

On 2023-06-23 at 8:01 PM, aawagner011 said:

It’s not about whether they briefly used a roundel at one point in time.

 

We were having a discussion about the (spurious) claim that the Villa logo was a rip off of the Chelsea logo, so it was about exactly that.

 

On 2023-06-23 at 8:01 PM, aawagner011 said:

On a primarily claret shirt, the old sky blue and yellow badge gave it some much needed contrast. The details were highly visible from a distance.

 

The new crest loses its uniqueness and the details are lost at a distance. The colors of the badge are heavier on claret at the expense of sky blue and yellow.

 

Overall, it just feels so much more generic. A badge is more than how it operates as a standalone logo. It’s how it works on digital platforms and social. It’s how the badge works in the context of the shirt and I feel like the new badge fails in that regard.

 

 

To me the The claret lion stands out so much better on the sky blue background than did the yellow lion, and I also like the redrawn lion. The Claret and Sky Blue has much greater contrast than the Yellow and Sky Blue did, especially for digital applications.

So many other teams followed Villas lead and began wearing Claret and sky blues, so it stands to reason that the badge should have an emphasis on those two colours because in English football, Villa were the team that popularized them. It wasn't yellow and sky blue all those teams started wearing in the wake of the success of Villa.

The fans overwhelmingly voted (77 percent) for the new crest over the outgoing one and the gaslamp crest, and the majority of the people who were consulted on a new crest also wanted an increased focus on the claret, which took a back seat on the previous crest, and I'm glad they did because the new crest is great. Sure, it's a roundel and those have been done a lot over the last 5-10 years, but as far as roundels go, this one is really good.

 

[TrueYankee26]

That old Chelsea crest looks way ahead of its time and could even be used today. Hard to believe that it came from the 60s

Edited June 24, 2023 by TrueYankee26
Spellcheck

[VampyrRabbit]

4 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

That old Chelsea crest looks way ahead of its time and could even be used today. Hard to believe that it came from the 60s

Looks great, don't it? The two scrolls, the way the lion stands on the bottom scroll and the head of the staff is on the top scroll, the fantastic serif font which is far superior to the sans serif one that is on the current Chelsea crest (which has its outline filling the counter of the a which looks really nasty) make it a much nicer crest. It would probably need a bit of a spruce up, but the old girl has held up really well.

Even the typography is better than the current crest. Once you actually see how bad the typography is on the current Chelsea Crest, you can't unsee it.

Lets compare by scalling both down to 490px by 490px (more on why I chose that later) and compare the script placement and outlines of the two. For the comparison, I treated the outlines of the scripts as part of them in terms of determining baseline and capline guides (determined by the height of the letter/letter closest to the vertical midline)

Here are the two crests side by side, with the green circles showing the (lower in the current logo) font baseline and capline, and the centre of the main roundel ring/scroll. As can be seen, the 63 year old logo has better typesetting than the current one. The non curvature of the font baseline is also so much more noticable in the current crest, and just look at how badly centred the first part of the Football Club part of the Chelsea script is. The apex of the F is far off the capline, and the apex of the a sticks out way above it. Also look at the placement of the roses and the difference in the centering of them.

It boggles the mind how Chelsea have had a crest with such shoddy typesetting for so long, and I doubt the reason for it is stylistic choice, the logo was designed for their centenary season and is basically a modernization and simplification of their 1960 crest, and in doing so they got rid of two of my fave parts  - the double scroll design and the lion standing on the lower scroll, which add so much charm to the 1960s design.

Before that, I also compared the typography layout of the current crest to another one, and as I could only find the new Villa logo in a good resolution sized 490px by 490px. If the comparison to the 1960s Chelsea crest is unflattering to the current logo, then a comparision to the new Villa logo is even harsher.

The layout of the Villa font with its curved baseline is far more accurate than the sans serif font used by Chelsea, and if Villa decide to add an outline to the team name, none of the letters will have a closed counter. The date of foundation would though, which is probably why it should really have used the same font size as the team name and the same centering. It still beats the woeful typesetting on the Chelsea logo hands down.

So, TLDR -

• Both the old Chelsea logo and the new Villa logo have typesetting that puts the current Chelsea crest to shame,
• Comparing the Villa logo to the Chelsea logo  brings into sharp focus just how objectively bad the typesetting is on the Chelsea badge, and it's incredible it was designed that way and that it has persisted.
• Chelsea should bring back the 1960 logo and tastefully update it for modern use, because it slaps.

 

[MJWalker45]

Manchester United officially released their home kit today. but for some reason the players that don't wear adidas boots were posed without their boots on! I would have at least cut the frame off instead of making them not wear Nike boots. 

I do like that the shirt pattern carries over to the socks though. And I really want to see the full layout of that cup font. 

As far as the shorts, I like the contrasting stripe colors on last year's black shorts. 

 

[VampyrRabbit]

Feel like it's a familiar story with the new Man U shirt - great colours and a nice print on the shirt, but those damn side/back panels.....

[upperV03]

On 6/27/2023 at 6:28 AM, MJWalker45 said:

Manchester United officially released their home kit today. but for some reason the players that don't wear adidas boots were posed without their boots on! I would have at least cut the frame off instead of making them not wear Nike boots. 

I do like that the shirt pattern carries over to the socks though. And I really want to see the full layout of that cup font. 

As far as the shorts, I like the contrasting stripe colors on last year's black shorts. 

 

I really love the shirt, and I agree that the pattern being carried over to the socks is a fantastic touch. I hate the white turnovers on the black socks, though. Feels a bit too white heavy, and will also look out of place when paired with the black shorts.  Both the black and white socks would be better with red turnovers and black adidas stripes IMO.

[Bomba Tomba]

I hate the new Teamviewer font, there's just a lot that it looks similar to

[MJWalker45]

Manchester United's new cup font

Full La Liga font

Man City cup font

[aawagner011]

The new Eintracht Frankfurt kit has been released. It’s quite nice and is a call back to old shirts from the late 1980s.

 

 

However, there is a strange detail: the model in the bottom left of this photo has a second Indeed sponsor printed on his upper shoulder. This is the only photo I can find with this detail. All of the others are normal. I am very interested to find out what this is about. Surely a mistake.

 

New Stuttgart shirt.

Augsburg home and third.

 

[cajunaggie08]

Everton home kit

 

 

Everton Goalkeeper