NIKE NFL Uniforms

[TheOldRoman]

Come on! Nike may be a strong player in actual athletic wear, but adidas and Reebok are both extremely strong in the niche market of casual athletic fashion. Run DMC?

There have been a few different styles from each brand which became wildly popular (everybody had button-up Adidas pants when I was in high school). However, they didn't have staying power. Neither one is remotely close to Nike, at least in the US. I know Adidas might be bigger overseas due to Soccer involvement. However, neither company has anything iconic like the swoosh. Both of them have changed their logos in the past twenty years.

[BBTV]

As an avid weight lifter who goes to / has gone to a lot of gyms over the past several years, I can say that from what I've seen, UA has surpassed Nike in terms of male fitness clothing.

At the recreational level, UA baseball / softball spikes have become pretty much part of the uniform, because thy're inexpensive and look good. At the higher levels, there's a lot of Nike as well as some other brands.

For running (I run 10 milers and halfs), Asics, Saucony, and Brooks dominate.

I live in a very urban area (actually kind of a hipster area but I go all over the place) so Puma, asics tiger, Converse, adidas, and various other non-Nike shoes dominate.

On the basketball courts near where I play softball, it's 99.9% Nike. In the lower-income areas that I go through, it's 99% Nike (and not cheap Nikes either, so I have to question people's priorities). For team sportswear, it's Nike (though I guess sometimes there's no choice due to exclusive contracts.)

I guess the point to this cool story was that at least from my observations in one city setting, Nike and the swoosh really dominate only in the lower income and more dangerous areas, and also team sports apparel.

[guest23]

As an avid weight lifter who goes to / has gone to a lot of gyms over the past several years, I can say that from what I've seen, UA has surpassed Nike in terms of male fitness clothing.

At the recreational level, UA baseball / softball spikes have become pretty much part of the uniform, because thy're inexpensive and look good. At the higher levels, there's a lot of Nike as well as some other brands.

For running (I run 10 milers and halfs), Asics, Saucony, and Brooks dominate.

I live in a very urban area (actually kind of a hipster area but I go all over the place) so Puma, asics tiger, Converse, adidas, and various other non-Nike shoes dominate.

On the basketball courts near where I play softball, it's 99.9% Nike. In the lower-income areas that I go through, it's 99% Nike (and not cheap Nikes either, so I have to question people's priorities). For team sportswear, it's Nike (though I guess sometimes there's no choice due to exclusive contracts.)

I guess the point to this cool story was that at least from my observations in one city setting, Nike and the swoosh really dominate only in the lower income and more dangerous areas, and also team sports apparel.

I'd agree with the UA point for men's fitness gear...in the 310 area code the nike free series dominates men and women along with newfangled barefoot running shoes...for the ladies, lululemon fitness gear is a requirement, I don't think they are permitted to leave the house on the weekends without the 3/4 length black tights.

[andrewharrington]

Come on! Nike may be a strong player in actual athletic wear, but adidas and Reebok are both extremely strong in the niche market of casual athletic fashion. Run DMC?

There have been a few different styles from each brand which became wildly popular (everybody had button-up Adidas pants when I was in high school). However, they didn't have staying power. Neither one is remotely close to Nike, at least in the US. I know Adidas might be bigger overseas due to Soccer involvement. However, neither company has anything iconic like the swoosh. Both of them have changed their logos in the past twenty years.

I suppose the definition of 'cool' is where we differ. I wouldn't consider what the average high schooler, guy at the gym, or person at the park pickup game wears to be 'cool.' I see that term fitting into more of a fashion market, where adidas Originals (which didn't change logos, by the way, and I think the trefoil is certainly globally iconic) and Reebok Classics reside. Does Nike have a 'style' division like that? If they do, I've never seen an ad for it. They and Under Armour obviously seem focus much more on performance apparel.

[JTernup]

I guess the point to this cool story was that at least from my observations in one city setting, Nike and the swoosh really dominate only in the lower income and more dangerous areas, and also team sports apparel.

I understand your point and to a degree agree with it, but this is getting kind of close to profiling (although I do realize these are observations from your experience). I'm a white "sneaker head" who lives in a suburban middle class area with a lower crime rate, I'm on NikeTalk and have dealt with many of the people who live in the "dangerous" areas both in and outside of CO and they are generally some of the nicer people I know. I own 20+ pairs of Nike basketball shoes and not a single pair of adidas, reebok or UA. Alot of the reason for Nike/Jordan dominance is the sig athletes, Lebron, Kobe, KD, Jordan and Penny are some of the most popular in the history of the game. I should also mention in H.S. And College ( I'll start at CU Boulder on Monday) Nike dominates among those that would fit under the "athletic umbrella" in clothing and shoes, for men and women. Finally, the Nike Elite socks are miles ahead of any other brands' socks and the elites are $15.

So, don't venture away from observatory into discriminatory.

[ARTnSocal]

So does anyone else not like how these new Nike jerseys look "two toned" when they get wet?

Yes ... include me in that group

Between the pointed toilet-seat collars and the wet-look I think the majority of new Nike jerseys are just plain awful.

I also think the NFL would have been better off changing their policy and letting Nike use only 1 swoosh logo on the front upper area of the jerseys rather than 2 swooshes, one on each sleeve. It just makes the jerseys looks far too busy with them, especially the teams that have their team logo on the sleeve like NO and Miami, and their numbers on the shoulder.

I'm very happy I bought my Reebok authentic jerseys last season before the change to Nike.

[andrewharrington]

Finally, the Nike Elite socks are miles ahead of any other brands' socks and the elites are $15.

Thorlos, baby.

[ARTnSocal]

The NFL Shop site had them but not selling right now.

I found one today, order by phone only, no online sales .... the non-white ones are not available online at this time for any of the 32 clubs I was told.

The teams that have them only have a very limited supply of them. The non-white is Item # NE920

My guess from what I was told is the non-white ones will be offered online after the start of the regular season when the supply is deep and the white training camp hats have halted production and supply has dwindled.

It cost me $22.40 which included a 20% discount code I have .... Also got free 2nd day shipping.

Thanks for posting the info and images on these ...

[Sodboy13]

Finally, the Nike Elite socks are miles ahead of any other brands' socks and the elites are $15.

Thorlos, baby.

I can vouch for this. My wife's an ER nurse and she swears by Thorlos.

[WSU151]

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

Again, you're not grasping the point. I guess the only way to spell it out is this: Imagine you have two identical individuals. They are clones, for all intents and purposes, and they are at their peak physical limits, meaning their bodies are each as fast, agile, coordinated and strong as they can possibly be in a natural state. There are going to be potential benefits to wearing a garment that is lighter, more breathable, less constricting, more aerodynamic, etc., and however small those benefits are, it still can mean the difference between running 100m in 9.58 or 9.59, all things being equal. Of course there are other factors, like reaction time, mental preparation and what have you, but all things being equal is the mantra of science. This isn't a 'what if' type of situation. 'If you do the work, then the garment works for you' is a good way to put it.

BBTV made a great analogy: Take two vehicles of the same weight, drivetrain and power output, but skin one like a Scion xB and the other like a Ferrari, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Ferraris, one with just a driver and the other with a driver and three passengers, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Hondas, let one rust and corrode while keeping the other lubricated to perfection, and there's a difference in performance. No matter how you slice it, optimizing aerodynamics, shaving weight and increasing mobility can all increase the performance and efficiency of any moving object with all other things being equal.

You're focusing on the idea that these garments claim to 'make you faster/quicker/stronger' when in actuality, they claim that they 'can make you faster/quicker/stronger', something that is absolutely true. It's using science to market as well as marketing with science. These types of claims cannot be made without scientific backing.

"Will make you faster/quicker/stronger" can be backed by science as there's actual proof that it will, in fact, achieve something. "Can make you faster/quicker/stronger" does not require science, as it might not happen unless the athlete makes it happen, in which case there's far more variables than just the garment. Telling you "you will win the lottery" is far different than "you can win the lottery". Anyone can win the lottery, and it's based on chance rather than science. Nike's message that the track and field suits is just as vague.."Up to 0.02 seconds faster". "Up to" is pretty vague, as that's a range from the negatives, to the same (0), to 0.000004, to 0.019, to 0.02. There's no promise that it WILL make it 0.02 seconds faster. And if you're not 0.02 seconds faster, that's your fault, not the garment's fault. "Up to", "potential", "you can" and other buzz words are not definitive, they encapsulate doubt and other variables, and therefore, the science is marginal. When you see something that says "you can win up to" 50,000 dollars, chances are you don't win anything.

And like oldschoolvikings said, if everyone on the field is wearing the same technology made by the same company, then everyone has the advantage, which makes everything moot.

"If you do the work, then the garment works for you" is a terrible mantra that only works for marketers, because it's the work that makes the difference, not the garment. And saying that the differences are felt when someone's at the peak...how do you define "peak"? Can't humans always be in better shape? It's like the graphic limits when dividing by zero...an athlete is always approaching peak, but never reaches "peak" because "reaching" the peak is impossible. There's always room to get better. So if the garment only works when the impossible happens, and that's considered actual science, then I have some beach property in Kansas that's just beautiful.

It's pretty easy to understand that Nike's miniscule changes in weights and wickiness and breathability (less than 5%) appeals to people who think it might make a difference, but in reality, the difference is microscopic especially at the strength and fitness levels that athletes are already at, if there is a difference at all. Thinking that it might make 0.01 seconds difference in actual time is highly, highly optimistic. And you've even agreed that it's more about the mental advantage than the actual physical advantage, which means I could make a jersey that's 39% lighter when it's really not. It's hype.

Nike would be better off (and far more honest) saying "Work as hard as you can and the training will make the difference" but they have to sell apparel, so...they spin it to make money. If technology only works if two clones are opposing each other, at the "peak" condition that can never be reached, then it's pretty apparent that the real scientific effects are zero.

Your car examples are pretty inaccurate because it's signifant weight changes you're talking about. Obviously, of two identical 220 pound running backs, one is going to be faster in t-shirt and shorts than the other one in 40 lbs of pads. The better and more comparable car argument is if I had two identical Ferraris, and one had the weight of a bottle of water in it and one didn't.

PS - Keep in mind I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just attacking the authenticity of marketing. I realize you have a job to do, and I respect what you do. But I really don't buy it based on taking a closer look at 1) how much a garment really weighs 2) how strong athletes really are and how much power they can generate on their own 3) the fact that unrealistic conditions have to happen for the technology to come into play.

[andrewharrington]

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

Again, you're not grasping the point. I guess the only way to spell it out is this: Imagine you have two identical individuals. They are clones, for all intents and purposes, and they are at their peak physical limits, meaning their bodies are each as fast, agile, coordinated and strong as they can possibly be in a natural state. There are going to be potential benefits to wearing a garment that is lighter, more breathable, less constricting, more aerodynamic, etc., and however small those benefits are, it still can mean the difference between running 100m in 9.58 or 9.59, all things being equal. Of course there are other factors, like reaction time, mental preparation and what have you, but all things being equal is the mantra of science. This isn't a 'what if' type of situation. 'If you do the work, then the garment works for you' is a good way to put it.

BBTV made a great analogy: Take two vehicles of the same weight, drivetrain and power output, but skin one like a Scion xB and the other like a Ferrari, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Ferraris, one with just a driver and the other with a driver and three passengers, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Hondas, let one rust and corrode while keeping the other lubricated to perfection, and there's a difference in performance. No matter how you slice it, optimizing aerodynamics, shaving weight and increasing mobility can all increase the performance and efficiency of any moving object with all other things being equal.

You're focusing on the idea that these garments claim to 'make you faster/quicker/stronger' when in actuality, they claim that they 'can make you faster/quicker/stronger', something that is absolutely true. It's using science to market as well as marketing with science. These types of claims cannot be made without scientific backing.

"Will make you faster/quicker/stronger" can be backed by science as there's actual proof that it will, in fact, achieve something. "Can make you faster/quicker/stronger" does not require science, as it might not happen unless the athlete makes it happen, in which case there's far more variables than just the garment. Telling you "you will win the lottery" is far different than "you can win the lottery". Anyone can win the lottery, and it's based on chance rather than science. Nike's message that the track and field suits is just as vague.."Up to 0.02 seconds faster". "Up to" is pretty vague, as that's a range from the negatives, to the same (0), to 0.000004, to 0.019, to 0.02. There's no promise that it WILL make it 0.02 seconds faster. And if you're not 0.02 seconds faster, that's your fault, not the garment's fault. "Up to", "potential", "you can" and other buzz words are not definitive, they encapsulate doubt and other variables, and therefore, the science is marginal. When you see something that says "you can win up to" 50,000 dollars, chances are you don't win anything.

And like oldschoolvikings said, if everyone on the field is wearing the same technology made by the same company, then everyone has the advantage, which makes everything moot.

"If you do the work, then the garment works for you" is a terrible mantra that only works for marketers, because it's the work that makes the difference, not the garment. And saying that the differences are felt when someone's at the peak...how do you define "peak"? Can't humans always be in better shape? It's like the graphic limits when dividing by zero...an athlete is always approaching peak, but never reaches "peak" because "reaching" the peak is impossible. There's always room to get better. So if the garment only works when the impossible happens, and that's considered actual science, then I have some beach property in Kansas that's just beautiful.

It's pretty easy to understand that Nike's miniscule changes in weights and wickiness and breathability (less than 5%) appeals to people who think it might make a difference, but in reality, the difference is microscopic especially at the strength and fitness levels that athletes are already at, if there is a difference at all. Thinking that it might make 0.01 seconds difference in actual time is highly, highly optimistic. And you've even agreed that it's more about the mental advantage than the actual physical advantage, which means I could make a jersey that's 39% lighter when it's really not. It's hype.

Nike would be better off (and far more honest) saying "Work as hard as you can and the training will make the difference" but they have to sell apparel, so...they spin it to make money. If technology only works if two clones are opposing each other, at the "peak" condition that can never be reached, then it's pretty apparent that the real scientific effects are zero.

Your car examples are pretty inaccurate because it's signifant weight changes you're talking about. Obviously, of two identical 220 pound running backs, one is going to be faster in t-shirt and shorts than the other one in 40 lbs of pads. The better and more comparable car argument is if I had two identical Ferraris, and one had the weight of a bottle of water in it and one didn't.

PS - Keep in mind I'm not attacking you personally. I'm just attacking the authenticity of marketing. I realize you have a job to do, and I respect what you do. But I really don't buy it based on taking a closer look at 1) how much a garment really weighs 2) how strong athletes really are and how much power they can generate on their own 3) the fact that unrealistic conditions have to happen for the technology to come into play.

My job is not marketing, so I really have no rooting interest in one side or the other, just to be clear.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, to be honest, but I'm looking at it from a totally different angle than you, and the two do not realate well. I think you bring up great points, and all your points are more than valid, but your points are also based on variables. Science attempts to eliminate the variables to show how, all things being equal, someone wearing this will outperform someone wearing that. It's like the technology in golf balls: Obviously, when hit with the exact same force and trajectory, some golf balls fly farther than others simply based on their aerodynamic and physical properties, and I'm sure every golf ball manufacturer will let you know exactly, on average, how much farther their ball flies. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to hit that ball farther than their normal ball, or that anyone can hit that ball as far as it will possibly go without shattering the outer shell, but the technology in the ball allows for that potential to be reached when combined with a technique and amount of power infinitely approaching optimum, whereas that potential may not come to fruition with a regular ball. It's about limits and ideal situations when you're dealing with the science and mathematics of it. That's why they have machines hit the balls when they test them, to eliminate those variables that you're using to make your points.

Of course, in the real world, you have to do the sprints, lift the weights and do the mental training to outperform your opponent, but that doesn't mean the technology you use can't or won't help you achieve that, no matter how minute the advantage may be. Of course there's marketing involved, but that doesn't mean the science behind it is bogus. On the flip side, there's no science behind winning the lottery.

[WSU151]

Ok the golfball example is a good rebuttal. Good points. I could say golf balls have great marketers too, because as Joe Schmoe, I'm never gonna go get a mechanical club and set up tests. So I take their word based on their "science", and it does create an urge to buy to take advantage of the science. So while the science may or may not be a bit overblown, I do think I can get the advantage advertised even if I don't.

[BlueSky]

Wow...just imagine if he'd been in a Nike uniform.

Yeah, somehow they managed to get it done in long-sleeved Durene.

[Old School Fool]

Seahawks away jersey with gray pants wasn't very good in the Madden 13 Demo. EA locked the demo to where the Seahawks had only that uniform and the Redskins had their throwbacks. The Redskins looked better.

Maybe the gray pants look better at night.

[bucknut40]

I didnt see enough hq photos to tell if they were nikes or not, but i was certain they werent adizeros. Maybe he just got so used to playing in them in college?? Anyone have any good pics??

1

2

3

Best three I could find

in picture number 2 you can see he is wearing a logoless adidas smoke glove

[Billy B]

Wow...just imagine if he'd been in a Nike uniform.

Yeah, somehow they managed to get it done in long-sleeved Durene.

Yeah, but everyone else also had the same long sleeve heavy jerseys. Wouldn't you prefer to see every athlete at the best physical output they can deliver?

[BlueSky]

Wow...just imagine if he'd been in a Nike uniform.

Yeah, somehow they managed to get it done in long-sleeved Durene.

Yeah, but everyone else also had the same long sleeve heavy jerseys. Wouldn't you prefer to see every athlete at the best physical output they can deliver?

Well, I'm pretty sure we did with Jim Brown. How many more yards would he have had in a Pro Combat uni? My guess is zero or pretty close. What's made the difference between then and now is not uniforms, it's guys not smoking (no, really, there are locker room shots of players puffing away back then), year-round conditioning (and better techniques), better understanding of nutrition, weight training (not everybody did it then), hydration (used to be players were "soft" if they needed water) and so on. Sure, the unis are lighter and more comfortable and that contributes to better performance, but that contribution is very, very tiny, so much so it hardly belongs in the conversation. As many others have said, most of the perception that better unis are a big deal is marketing.

What's also amusing is that those long sleeves protected the elbow area. Now guys have no sleeves but put all kinds of crap on the arms to do the same thing.

[tBBP]

Boy...I sho' didn't expect all this...and had I known that sharing my grunt-hardened skeptical opinion of seemingly arbitrary percentage figures would've led to all this, I'd have just kept it to myself. My bad, y'all.

So to help make it up to y'all, here's a picture (that's actually half-appropriate in the sense of opinions)...

[slats7]

Wow...just imagine if he'd been in a Nike uniform.

Yeah, somehow they managed to get it done in long-sleeved Durene.

I don't think anyone advocates sleeves that come down to the wrists, but mid-bicep sleeves should be mandatory for all teams.

[shstpt1]

Seahawks away jersey with gray pants wasn't very good in the Madden 13 Demo. EA locked the demo to where the Seahawks had only that uniform and the Redskins had their throwbacks. The Redskins looked better.

Maybe the gray pants look better at night.

Pretty sure those were the grey jerseys with the grey pants