English football team shirt looks good -- for a change!

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Even though I have become a big fan of English football over the past few years, the one thing that will always strike me as irredeemably ugly is the shirt sponsor, where the ad is the biggest thing on the front, dwarfing the team's badge.

Well, in this week's Champions League game at Bordeaux, Liverpool wore shirts with no ads, and looked great! Despite the depressing fact this was done for a regrettable reason -- a law in France prohibiting advertising of alcohol -- the unis sure were beautiful, for a change!

For some reason, I cannot make links to the images. Maybe because they don't end in a normal image extension like .jpg or .gif? (These pics are jpeg format, but do not have URLs ending with that extension.)

Anyway, we can see Luis Garcia, Craig Bellamy and Peter Crouch in their nice, clean shirts!

(And, yes, I know that shirt sponsors are coming to MLS unis next season, and I find it saddening.)

[hecticbro]

There's a law prohibiting advertisement of alcohol.... in France?

When did that happen?

[Gothamite]

Here's another look:

Beautiful.

(And, yes, I know that shirt sponsors are coming to MLS unis next season, and I find it saddening.)

Don't weep for MLS.

This isn't any uglier than a shirt sponsor:

Only DC United and Chivas have reason to complain.

[gosioux76]

I'm of the opposite belief when it comes to European soccer jerseys. I find it unusual, in a bad way, when I see jerseys with no shirt sponsor. Back when I wasn't a fan of the game, the idea of shirt sponsors to me was appalling. But now that I've followed the game for a while, I just accept it as part of the culture.

In other words, I see ads on the jerseys as being the way it should be.

[iowahoo]

I'm of the opposite belief when it comes to European soccer jerseys. I find it unusual, in a bad way, when I see jerseys with no shirt sponsor. Back when I wasn't a fan of the game, the idea of shirt sponsors to me was appalling. But now that I've followed the game for a while, I just accept it as part of the culture.

In other words, I see ads on the jerseys as being the way it should be.

I've been following European soccer since I was born in Scotland.. .before ads were commonplace. The team I support, Aberdeen in Scotland, was one of the last to add a sponsor to the front of their tops. I have since grown accostmed to the ads and think they look odd without them. THe pre-ad tops were much more plain and simple. That Liverpool shirt still looks busy and cluttered because of all the design elements in the jersey and the adidas three stripes.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

gosioux76: I'm of the opposite belief when it comes to European soccer jerseys. I find it unusual, in a bad way, when I see jerseys with no shirt sponsor. Back when I wasn't a fan of the game, the idea of shirt sponsors to me was appalling. But now that I've followed the game for a while, I just accept it as part of the culture. In other words, I see ads on the jerseys as being the way it should be.

iowahoo: I've been following European soccer since I was born in Scotland.. .before ads were commonplace. The team I support, Aberdeen in Scotland, was one of the last to add a sponsor to the front of their tops. I have since grown accostmed to the ads and think they look odd without them. THe pre-ad tops were much more plain and simple.

These comments remind me of something that happened in the Majors this season: a player decided to wear his socks the correct way (pants to calves, stirrups showing), and was told by his teammates that he looked funny, and that the ankle-length-pants/no-visible-sock style looked "more professional"!

This is the danger of a bad design element -- after a while, most people become inured to it. Like when kids of today snicker upon seeing real basketball shorts in pictures.

gothamite: Don't weep for MLS. This isn't any uglier than a shirt sponsor:

Wow, I just cannot agree! I mean, yes the jersey would look better without the big name there. But to claim that the team name is not any uglier than an ad is bizarre. I mean, on a European football shirt, the ad is the biggest thing on there. This alone is, I submit, preposterous. (And, I would have thought that we "uni people" would be almost unanimous on that!)

Furthermore, from a purely branding standpoint, if there is going to be one thing that is so big that it dominates the shirt, and that it is visible from a field-length away, then it should be the team name.

When you think of Willie Mays, the word "Giants" comes into your mind, simply because that word is ever-present in images of him. Likewise, you cannot possibly think of Stan Musial without the word "Cardinals" making its way into your psyche, because that word appears on The Man's chest in almost every photo.

Now, think of Beckham. What seeps into your thoughts? "Sharp". Think of Henry. "O2". This kind of strong placement of these corporate names into the public consciousness explains why companies covet these shirt-front spaces. However, from a socio-cultural point of view, I find it tragic.

This is why I no longer lament the ignorance of football (soccer) in the U.S. Because, if the Premiership or even MLS became sufficiently mainstream in this country, then so would the acceptance of ads in these inappropriate places. And, once this psychological hurdle is overcome, the market forces would inevitably result in our seeing ads on the fronts of uniforms in baseball and the other sports. This is not unrealistic -- Mark Cuban is actively pursuing this in the NBA, and has gone on record as saying that ads would already be on NBA unis if he had his way.

I guess I (like many here) take unis seriously, as a treasured part of our visual culture. So, for me, a "hard line" on the inappropriateness of shirt sponsors is the only place that I can possibly come down.

iowahoo: That Liverpool shirt still looks busy and cluttered because of all the design elements in the jersey and the adidas three stripes.

Yes, true! There shouldn't be any of that crap, either! Another case where the phenomenon of the public getting inured to the aesthetically revolting is apparent! (In my own defense, I was just so giddy at seeing the ad-free front that I focussed only on that aspect of the jersey!)

This, my friends, is what I would call the ideal football shirt.

[Gothamite]

gothamite: Don't weep for MLS. This isn't any uglier than a shirt sponsor:

Wow, I just cannot agree! I mean, yes the jersey would look better without the big name there. But to claim that the team name is not any uglier than an ad is bizarre. I mean, on a European football shirt, the ad is the biggest thing on there. This alone is, I submit, preposterous. (And, I would have thought that we "uni people" would be almost unanimous on that!)

I'm not talking economic theory, I'm talking about from a strictly aesthetic standpoint. The average sponsor's logo on the front of the shirt is no uglier than the big honking workmark on an MLS shirt. Maybe that's because the MLS wordmarks are by and large hideous.

Would I eliminate shirt sponsorship? Of course. But I'd simultaneously eliminate the MLS wordmark, and for the exact same reason. They are equally offensive to the eye.