Football kits and a lack of club identity
A club’s colours and kit are a fundamental part of their tradition and heritage; indeed many would recognise a team because of their uniform before their badge.
Take my side, Arsenal, and the introduction of their famous white sleeves back n the 1930’s. Manager Herbert Chapman introduced white sleeves to the previously all-red Arsenal shirts in 1934 but how this idea came about depends on which source you believe. One version of events has Chapman spotting someone in the Highbury crowd wearing a red sleeveless sweater over a white shirt. A look that he felt it would help the players identify each other on the pitch.
Alternatively, some credit the look to famous cartoonist Tom Webster, who wore a striking blue pullover over a white shirt whilst enjoying a round of golf with the then Chelsea chairman, Claude Kirby. Kirby himself was taken with the idea of adding white sleeves to Chelsea’s shirt, though Chapman upon being told of the look made sure his cherished Arsenal adorned the new style.
Furthermore, it was Chapman who incorporated the badge on to the left hand side of the new shirt and added stripes to the teams socks, reasoning that the distinctive pattern and colours would make team mates more visible and thus, easier to pass to.
Last season a new white away kit was released by Arsenal and Nike incorporating Chapman’s striped socks and having his name adorning the shirt. Furthermore, Chapman was the driving focus of the advertising campaign for the shirt.
This came in for heavy criticism by a lot of Arsenal fans, firstly for having a kit the same colour as Spurs and secondly for what was seen as a pretty shameless campaign by Nike.
It now seems somewhat ironic that ideas that were seen as so innovative back then are now so trivial and more often than not implemented solely for commercial gain.
This year many more Gooners are in uproar over the removal of the traditional white sleeves by Nike. Why they have decided to remove one of the club’ss most identifiable characteristics is beyond me, for surely someone at Nike must’ve realised that it’s an integral part of the clubs identity - they’ve been doing our kits for over 10 years. Take away the sponsor and the badge and you have a Manchester United shirt. Or a Liverpool shirt. Or a Middlesbrough shirt. Or a ….
Similarly the new yellow away shirt, whilst adhering to traditional colours is again the victim of the money men at the head of Nike, associating the strip with the 89’ title winning side. This photo released to promote the new kit ropes in some of the winners on the night of that famous night in Anfield and even features the Division 1 title in the background.
As much as I appreciate the sentiment involved in having Rocastle’s shirt above the trophy it still smacks of shameless corporate advertising. If the trend of basing a shirt on historic events continues (something also seen with Liverpool’s grey and red update of their 80’s away kit) then by 2020 we will be having shirts commemorating last seasons 1-1 draw with Wigan at the JJB.
In this time of rising ticket prices, corporate-named stadiums and excessive foreign investment it feels to me we the fans, Arsenal or otherwise, are again being taken for a ride. Last season Arsenal released a red and blue striped third shirt, a shirt I invested £45 in, only to see the team play in it around about 8/9 times and be scrapped for next season. The purpose? And yet they keep the unfavourable white shirt for the coming campaign.
The sting of several years ago upon Umbro, Manchester United and JJB Sports over the retail prices of football shirts seems to have been cunningly overcome by simply releasing more shirts.
Chelsea last season released the much publicised electric yellow shirt, only to replace this season with a mundane black affair. Surely a purely financial move? They too released a third shirt, though like Arsenal’s it appeared a scarce number of times.
Liverpool this season have released a new home and away kit, with another to be confirmed. Last season they released 2 away shirts, as well as a new home and 2 away shirts the season before.
Ditto Spurs.
Serial offenders Manchester United aren’t even on a par with the likes of these 2 clubs.
I could go on (be thankful you aren’t a Real Madrid fan - a new, practically unchanged kit every season!) but I shan’t bore/offend you(r) club.
I know you could argue that there’s no compulsory need to buy any shirts, that it’s a contribution to the club and that people do get excited by new kits and technological advances. But what of the parents now spending up to £120 a season on replica shirts (before you mention shorts, socks, numbering etc), of those who get fed up with seeing their shirt on the sales rack in JJB for under £20, having spent more than double that mere months earlier? And what of a club’s identity?
Liverpool have in the past 3 seasons had a:
Yellow and red trim away kit
White and green chequered kit
White, red and green trimmed kit
Black and red trim kit
Grey and red trim kit
And a yet to be confirmed aqua blue/green kit
How many more can and will they have? And this isn’t a slight on Liverpool F.C and so on, but on the multi-million pound suppliers like Nike and Adidas who are neglecting fans and club ideals in favour of profit margins and in addition vindicating doing so with tawdry historic references.
The ‘technological advances’ that arrive every year are nothing more than jargon to concur with the elitist image companies are trying to promote within domestic football and on a broader, global scale.
Nike advertise new national kits on their website, describing Brazil’s as:
‘Brazil’s love affair with the World Cup began 50 years ago with the first of their record five victories. The new home shirt reflects that heritage in classic yellow with Brazilian green on the collar, cuffs and a new flash on the side. Made from DRI - FIT to keep you cooler, drier and lighter‘.
Essentially the same as nigh on every Nike kit at the moment, bar colouration. And none to different from the one preceding it and more than likely than the next . In many cases the shirt will vary very little, again detracting from the price - why pay another £40 for what is nigh on the same shirt with some minor alterations.
In all seriousness, this may seem a somewhat insignificant matter in the current climate of greedy agents, mercenaries (no names mentioned) and Game 39, but I write this knowing full well that not only will this trend continue and worsen in the coming years but that it represents another victory for big business and money when it comes to football - however negligible it may seem right now.
All the latest football headlines.
Discussion - 13 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
You’ve mentioned it and dismissed it, but seriously buy less kits, actually thats not the right answer buy kits however often you want, but also only buy a kit because you like it, not because it’s the latest one. When you buy a new kit tell yourself it may only be used one or two seasons, but will you happy wearing the shirt after the team’s stopped wearing it?
I’m a liverpool fan, but I hadn’t bought a team shirt for ages then adidas came back as our kit manufacturers and introduced a home shirt I loved the look of, so I bought it. Of course now two years on it’s been replaced, but I hate the new one, so i’m just gonna keep wearing the one i’ve already got.
Follow your head, as well as your heart and maybe eventually they’ll get the message.
I agree about the club colours especially Aresnal. I have just mailed them asking why we don’t stick to the darker red - which is in keeping with the original colours of 1890’s with the white sleeves of 1930’s introduction. Personally I loved the kit worn the last year at Highbury, we looked smart and more importantly different to Man U, Liverpool and other red topped clubs. Some people will always buy the latest tops regardless but the clubs should stick with traditional colours where possible. I’m sticking with my redcurrent top!
I hate the new Arsenal home kit and won’t buy it. As a football kit it is great, but it is not Arsenal. I emailed Arsenal to complain and they very quickly responded with some standard blurb, which made me think there must have been a lot of similar complaints.
On the other hand, the new away kit is great.
Im not even gonna buy the 2 away Liverpool tops this season! F*** Adidas I want Reebok back! Seeing the Arsenal and United tops this season it seems that nike too (as you’ve mentioned) are also in for profit over club tradition.
wow, i couldnt agree more. so many kits today look the same apart from the badge and sponsor.
i also agree that the arsenal red currant was gold…just brill. i’d love to see it again- maybe as an away jersey? and bring back the white sleeves for the home?
i like the new home kit…but the away…not a big fan at all.
LFC fan here:
This year away kit is class- grey , hmm i like it. but what about the classy black of last year?
But this year’s home kit is beyond SHIT- 2 much white… last year was cool though. But plz no yellow n green ever again.
buy shirts when you want. why should nike/adidas/reebok or anyone else not make shirts when they know they can sell them? if you dont like them, want them, are offended by them, or if they dont have the ‘historical significance’ you want, DONT BUY THEM.
end of
Yes I agree. I’m majorly disappointed by Manchester United releasing two new shirts every year. I think every shirt should last atleast 3-4 years. Now look at the Barcelona 08/09 shirt. Half blue, half red with a Unicef logo. How times change.
It’s golddigging at it’s worst. It’s good in the way that rich people can have more shirts but it’s bad in the way that poor people need to save up to be up to date. It’s a bit like iPods, except with iPods there’s a reason as every iPod is better than it’s predecessor so there’s a reason to spend money. There’s no reason to release new shirts every year, it’s plain money grabbing. I was going to buy the beautiful black shirt this year, but I knew it would be out of date after a year, so why should I do it?
Disgusting.
Take away the sponsor and the badge and you have a Manchester United shirt. Or a Liverpool shirt. Or a Middlesbrough shirt. Or a ….
Actually, not a Middlesbrough top. That band across the front, introduced way back in the 80’s sets the Boro far apart from the rest. Sure, for a while it was lost, but it is still a dream kit identity for no clubs. Take away the sponsor and badge, and you see… A boro top. That, or a badly discoloured Turkey top.
i m a bit confused.r u admiring real or berating dem???but i have to say that their adherence to the white shirt is quite admirable.at the same time it seems that everchanging kits r limited to the premier league. serie a nd la liga teams have generally the same home kits year after year. the only change that might occur is in d sponsor name. it must be awful to see something that you have always associated with your club being changed without much importance being attached to its significance. thats why i think the fans should have more of a say in club matters.but i guess thats a debate that will go on nd on.
he’s criticising real.
it would be quite cool if they spent a lot of effort into making the kits and keep them for 2 years at least. If we had 2-year kits instead of yearly kits that would be a great improvement.
spare a thought for dortmund, not sure about historical colours there but theyve always worn black and yellow in my lifetime, last year was white this year not sure probably the same. different debate but similar point, villa just released their new kit today and have gone with a local childrens charity on the front. i know it gives a lot of publicity to the logo but honestly who really goes and checks what the sponsors are? i had no idea what mansion was when spurs first wore that logo and didnt go check, i was in the dark for ages… my point is that its just a publicity stunt, same as unicef at barce, story goes that ronaldinho demanded it but as for villa, instead of patronising a charity, which is likely a self serving gesture in PR, if they no longer need the money, why not go classic, as west ham did in 97/98 season and barce have all their history until recently.
Really it’s up to the clubs and the supporters. The clubs should run a 2 year cycle, and should insist firms like Nike give clubs more attention, rather than issuing a prototype kit every year then changing the colours accordingly. They’ve been doing this since the start of the 02/03 season, when Leeds, Man Utd and Arsenal all had virtually the same design. In 05/06, Arsenal and Juventus had the same away kit except for sponsor and badge.
Supporters should only buy kits they like, and continue to wear them when the team stop. My fear is we’ll soon have half-season kits, or 4th kits.
Arsenal’s new home kit looks like the 00/02 home kit, except for the red creeping on to the sleeve and the trim going from blue to maroon.
Tottenham change their home, away and 3rd every season. At least Liverpool gave their home kit 2 years. Though as you point out, in 3 seasons back with Adidas (this unstarted one being the 3rd), they’ve now released 8 kits.
Gone is the two year cycle system which all teams seemed to adhere to (if by making an away kit their third), unless they had a sponsor change or were called Middlesbrough.