2011 MLS Kits

[TalktoChuck]

Yeah but the idea for a clash kit isn't to use a team color, it's to clash with the other team- almost every epl team's clash is missing team colors

I'm new to following soccer, so just to clarify, is a clash kit the same as the third kit or is a clash more like the secondary?

From what I've seen in EPL it seems like some teams have secondary kits that are in team colors but some have completely different colors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most(all?) MLS teams have a primary and secondary both in team colors. Is there an MLS team with a kit that isn't in the team colors?

Yeah the clash kit is the secondary kit that is worn when the away club's primary kit clashes with the home club's primary kit. Then some teams have third/alternate kits that they can wear. The clash and third kits are usually where you see teams try new things and experiment with colors and designs.

And as Billy already mentioned, Seattle and Portland are the only ones that come to mind in the MLS that use non-club colors.

[Mingjai]

Yeah but the idea for a clash kit isn't to use a team color, it's to clash with the other team- almost every epl team's clash is missing team colors

I'm new to following soccer, so just to clarify, is a clash kit the same as the third kit or is a clash more like the secondary?

From what I've seen in EPL it seems like some teams have secondary kits that are in team colors but some have completely different colors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most(all?) MLS teams have a primary and secondary both in team colors. Is there an MLS team with a kit that isn't in the team colors?

On a similar note, most national teams' clash kits are in some variant national colors (or national uniform colors)--I'm having a hard time thinking of a national team whose uniform isn't in their national or traditional colors other than the US's anthracite set (which still gave the appearance of dark blue under most lighting).

Instead of the funky-colored clash kit like in club soccer, you'll see national teams mix and match elements of their kits to make sure that their kit completely clashes with jersey, shorts, and socks of the home side. For example, let's say US is hosting Mexico, and the US as home team decides to wear white jerseys and white shorts (instead of its traditional blue shorts), Mexico could still wear their traditional green jerseys, but they would have to wear green shorts (or whatever color their secondary shorts are, but not their traditional white) in order to clash with the US's white shorts. You see this mixing and matching in club soccer as well, but not to the extent you see it with national teams.

[Jer15]

Yeah but the idea for a clash kit isn't to use a team color, it's to clash with the other team- almost every epl team's clash is missing team colors

I'm new to following soccer, so just to clarify, is a clash kit the same as the third kit or is a clash more like the secondary?

From what I've seen in EPL it seems like some teams have secondary kits that are in team colors but some have completely different colors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most(all?) MLS teams have a primary and secondary both in team colors. Is there an MLS team with a kit that isn't in the team colors?

Off the top of my head, the Sounders new black jersey is the only secondary/away jersey that is not a team color. There's probably a couple more I can't think of. I think there are a lot less cases of a non-team color being used as their away jersey in the MLS because of what American fans are used to seeing in home/road sets.

Fake edit: The Timbers road is going to be red.

A better example, though it's D2, is the Montreal Impact who use pink for a clash kit.

EDIT: The team colours are white and blue.

[MJWalker45]

Montreal also uses a blue clash kit as well. I believe the pink kit was a third uniform.

[kmccarthy27]

Montreal also uses a blue clash kit as well. I believe the pink kit was a third uniform.

MLS will have a lot of Clash kits because 90% of the league uses blue!

[MJWalker45]

When MLS first started everyone wore white away jerseys. I'm glad they started to fix that when NY and LA went to white home kits. I guess that's one of my hang ups with Hyundai A-League. Why should Sydney have to wear white against Adelaide, who wears red, when their sky blue shirts clash just the same?

[exaccardi]

Yeah but the idea for a clash kit isn't to use a team color, it's to clash with the other team- almost every epl team's clash is missing team colors

I'm new to following soccer, so just to clarify, is a clash kit the same as the third kit or is a clash more like the secondary?

From what I've seen in EPL it seems like some teams have secondary kits that are in team colors but some have completely different colors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most(all?) MLS teams have a primary and secondary both in team colors. Is there an MLS team with a kit that isn't in the team colors?

On a similar note, most national teams' clash kits are in some variant national colors (or national uniform colors)--I'm having a hard time thinking of a national team whose uniform isn't in their national or traditional colors other than the US's anthracite set (which still gave the appearance of dark blue under most lighting).

Instead of the funky-colored clash kit like in club soccer, you'll see national teams mix and match elements of their kits to make sure that their kit completely clashes with jersey, shorts, and socks of the home side. For example, let's say US is hosting Mexico, and the US as home team decides to wear white jerseys and white shorts (instead of its traditional blue shorts), Mexico could still wear their traditional green jerseys, but they would have to wear green shorts (or whatever color their secondary shorts are, but not their traditional white) in order to clash with the US's white shorts. You see this mixing and matching in club soccer as well, but not to the extent you see it with national teams.

Mexico's current away kit is black, and Australia's away kit is blue- two examples of non team colors in international kits

[AJM]

Seattle has already mirrored this trend of 3rd kits that do not feature the teams colors (i.e) the electricity kits.

Chelsea, Barca, and Everton (off the top of my head) always have at least one kit that does not use any of the team's main colors.

[MJWalker45]

Manchester United rotates between royal blue, black and white for their clash kits. But realistically most Eurpopean teams use a color that doesn't match up with their official team colors or badges. some teams in Spain will utilize their city or regions official colors as their second or third uniforms. Bayern Munich and AC Milan both use all black or all white as their clash and third kits.

[Panthers]

For the final time:

It seems reading comprehension on this site is way, way down. I have never, ever, ever said I pine for the days of the old NASL. I have said some names were good, some JERSEYS were good and the league had some concepts which were good. But that's it. Senile you say? Only an uneducated punk loner loser who sits in the basement of his mother's house would say that, i.e. because he has no life.

You want sponsorship? Buy a sign. On a team item? A patch will do nicely. That's it. Is it a team identity or a corporate identity? You tell me. It is just plain wrong.

By the way, every sports league in its early years infulenced games, matchups, etc. (but not the outcomes - let's be clear on this). The NFL did it, baseball did it, the USFL did it (remember the convoluted 1985 playoffs?)

There is NO DESIGN when you have some meaningless corporate logo or name take up most of the JERSEY. Clear?

I thought so.

[TFoA]

[IceCap]

For the final time:

It seems reading comprehension on this site is way, way down. I have never, ever, ever said I pine for the days of the old NASL. I have said some names were good, some JERSEYS were good and the league had some concepts which were good. But that's it. Senile you say? Only an uneducated punk loner loser who sits in the basement of his mother's house would say that, i.e. because he has no life.

You want sponsorship? Buy a sign. On a team item? A patch will do nicely. That's it. Is it a team identity or a corporate identity? You tell me. It is just plain wrong.

By the way, every sports league in its early years infulenced games, matchups, etc. (but not the outcomes - let's be clear on this). The NFL did it, baseball did it, the USFL did it (remember the convoluted 1985 playoffs?)

There is NO DESIGN when you have some meaningless corporate logo or name take up most of the JERSEY. Clear?

I thought so.

Good G-d man. Just shut the hell up.

[WideRight]

Panthers doesn't seem to get it.

Football jerseys have large numbers on the front and back. If a baseball jersey did that it would look awful.

Hockey jerseys have huge team logos on the front. If a football team does that (NFLE, CFL) people go ballistic.

Baseball jerseys can have a single letter monogram on them. Try that on a basketball jersey and listen to the uproar.

Soccer jerseys have a team patch and a huge sponsor name on them. That is the way it is. That is how it is in the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Mexican League, Bundesliga, French league, Swedish league, Japanese league, etc.

Why would MLS be any different? Sponsor logos are as much a part of soccer's aesthetic as the hockey jersey logo, the baseball monogram or pinstripes, or football's large player numbers on the front.

If you don't like it, stop watching soccer, or only watch international competitions between nations. Because if you watch soccer, you will see corporate sponsorships on the jersey.

Whining like a 4 year old who thinks everything isn't fair just makes you look like an idiot. What's next, you get pissed off that there are clouds in the sky because the sky is supposed to be blue? Get over it.

[Kevin W.]

You want sponsorship? Buy a sign. On a team item? A patch will do nicely.

Putting it on a patch makes the sponsorship pointless. Being sponsored is about getting the sponsor's name out there. There's no point in trying to get the name out there if you can't read it without being three feet away.

Just stop, dude.

[AJM]

You want sponsorship? Buy a sign. On a team item? A patch will do nicely.

Putting it on a patch makes the sponsorship pointless. Being sponsored is about getting the sponsor's name out there. There's no point in trying to get the name out there if you can't read it without being three feet away.

Just stop, dude.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

and back to new MLS kits...

[lost_limey]

Is that all Red DC United kit for real? It looks god awful. Couldn't they at least pair the red shirt with black shorts? They are nicknamed the black and red after all, even though the red is a minor accent color at best on the black and white shirts.

[Gothamite]

Is that all Red DC United kit for real? It looks god awful. Couldn't they at least pair the red shirt with black shorts? They are nicknamed the black and red after all, even though the red is a minor accent color at best on the black and white shirts.

Wouldn't be much of a change kit, if they kept the same color scheme.

[lost_limey]

True, it wouldn't be a great clash, but I thing pairing a red shirt with either black or white shorts (depending on opponent) and red socks would be different enough from ono-black and mono-white to work as a more subtle clash.

[MJWalker45]

Seeing as they originally wore red shorts with black tops, a red shirt with black shorts would look much better. And not look like a Chicago Fire uniform with black accents. Yes I know the Chicago uniform is a different template, just stating for comparison sake. And no silver straps like Seattle got stuck with make the new kits look much better

[Jer15]

Montreal also uses a blue clash kit as well. I believe the pink kit was a third uniform.

I thought it was the other way around. My bad.