By Ben Rebuck
Being a great admirer of football kits, it seems increasingly annoying that kit manufactures design their kits in such a similar fashion. Take recent Puma kits for example.
With the two kits below, Ghana 2008/2009 and Senegal 2008/2009, you can see too many similarities to make the kits seem unique and give the team, itself, their own identity. These two kits are virtually identical. Apart from the colours of the Puma logos, and the golden sleeve outline on the Senegal kit, it actually seems impossible to tell the difference. The countries team emblems even look similar.
Football shirts themselves do seem to match one another, depending on the make, but I think it’s time that the manufacturers try to be original for once. I’m not saying Adidas should remove their famous 3 stripes from their kits or Nike should change their swoosh logo, but as football fans we splash out £40 every year for the latest kit but why should we pay for another team’s old one?
Obviously the question of brand identity comes into question to contradict my point exactly. The big manufacturers want people to be walking down the street and see a shirt and say, "yep, that’s Adidas!" or "another Nike shirt!" But where my point comes into play is that you can predict what kits are going to look like before they even come up.
Overall I do think brand awareness is important but the fact that a lot of kits look the same seems disappointing for kit lovers as the thrill of waiting for kits disappears.
.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
GO ON THE BHOYS IN GREEN!
The article says everything that we now, but theres a lack of analysis as to why this is happening. There are many points adressed in the article in a good way, but the question posed as a title is not answered in the development but only reinforced. One could argue a thousand reasons why, and itd be nice to see at least one of those in the article.
#1 is profit margin, many players wear 2 kits per match and as for the national teams never the same shirt twice. It costs a lot to produce all those shirts and it\'s the team\'s equipment sponsor (i.e. nike, adidas, puma) that has to pay for them all. It\'s much, much more profitable to stamp out the same design since they make their money form the replica sales.
#2 the companies them selves are put under pressure by the individual FA\'s of the teams they sponsor. No matter how small or weak your team may be you don\'t want you players to feel that they don\'t deserve the same good equipment as the big teams. Therefor most of the big names will pour all their research and development into just 1 to 4 versions of the best possible kit designs. Then just replace colors and badges to fit the team. This makes all the players happy and equal (looks wise anyway).
#3 Technology, there really is only one good solution to a problem. It\'s much harder to say create a 36 different shirts that will keep a player dry, comfortable, cool, and tug resistant. The heyday of the individual kit design for each team was from the early 90\'s till 2000. Back when the big names had small individual teams of designers each working with their own club/country to find out what was best for them. By 2000 the small groups of designers gave way to large ones that came up with one solution for all teams. If you notice since 2000 all national team kits are designed for warm weather play and very little consideration is given to cold match tests. The obvious reason is that all major tournaments are played in the summer, when they need to preform their best. All of the major brands feel it is better to have a shirt that can preform great in the summer and OK in the winter as opposed to testing good for both temperatures.
#4 The big companies sponsor so many teams in modern times that it\'s just impossible to make enough unique kits for everyone. Using the \"cookie cutter\" kit designs has given the big name companies the ability to sponsor even the smallest club team. Which means that if you just happen to support a weak side in the third division there is still good chance that you can buy their replica kit.
#5 is FIFA, who has issued specific rules about how a kit can look and be designed. Remember when FIFA went after Cameroon twice, first for the one piece puma kit and then for the sleeveless puma shirt at the 2002 WC? A little know rule is that no national team kit may contain more then 3 colors (with exception to the badge) or risk expulsion from the tournament. And yes white and black count as a color. Which means Germany should have not been able to compete in there own home kit at the last WC! Needless to say this rule is not strictly enforced. With all this trouble it just makes sense to conform all the designs into one.
The only exceptions to these are the \"flagship teams\" who tend to get at least one unique kit design feature each cycle. Or the kit it\'s self is designed first for that team and just adapted to all the others. (Italy and Cameroon for Puma, Brazil and USA for Nike, Germany and France/Argentina for Adidas, England for Umbro)
It is nice to see that now some of the companies are making the kits look different and individual despite the fact that the kits are still just the same. I think it\'s safe to say there will never be another world cup like \'98 (or Euro \'96 and 2000 for that matter) when no two nike or adidas shirts were of the same design.
#1 is profit margin, many players wear 2 kits per match and as for the national teams never the same shirt twice. It costs a lot to produce all those shirts and it\'s the team\'s equipment sponsor (i.e. nike, adidas, puma) that has to pay for them all. It\'s much, much more profitable to stamp out the same design since they make their money form the replica sales.
#2 the companies them selves are put under pressure by the individual FA\'s of the teams they sponsor. No matter how small or weak your team may be you don\'t want you players to feel that they don\'t deserve the same good equipment as the big teams. Therefor most of the big names will pour all their research and development into just 1 to 4 versions of the best possible kit designs. Then just replace colors and badges to fit the team. This makes all the players happy and equal (looks wise anyway).
#3 Technology, there really is only one good solution to a problem. It\'s much harder to say create a 36 different shirts that will keep a player dry, comfortable, cool, and tug resistant. The heyday of the individual kit design for each team was from the early 90\'s till 2000. Back when the big names had small individual teams of designers each working with their own club/country to find out what was best for them. By 2000 the small groups of designers gave way to large ones that came up with one solution for all teams. If you notice since 2000 all national team kits are designed for warm weather play and very little consideration is given to cold match tests. The obvious reason is that all major tournaments are played in the summer, when they need to preform their best. All of the major brands feel it is better to have a shirt that can preform great in the summer and OK in the winter as opposed to testing good for both temperatures.
#4 The big companies sponsor so many teams in modern times that it\'s just impossible to make enough unique kits for everyone. Using the \"cookie cutter\" kit designs has given the big name companies the ability to sponsor even the smallest club team. Which means that if you just happen to support a weak side in the third division there is still good chance that you can buy their replica kit.
#5 is FIFA, who has issued specific rules about how a kit can look and be designed. Remember when FIFA went after Cameroon twice, first for the one piece puma kit and then for the sleeveless puma shirt at the 2002 WC? A little know rule is that no national team kit may contain more then 3 colors (with exception to the badge) or risk expulsion from the tournament. And yes white and black count as a color. Which means Germany should have not been able to compete in there own home kit at the last WC! Needless to say this rule is not strictly enforced. With all this trouble it just makes sense to conform all the designs into one.
The only exceptions to these are the \"flagship teams\" who tend to get at least one unique kit design feature each cycle. Or the kit it\'s self is designed first for that team and just adapted to all the others. (Italy and Cameroon for Puma, Brazil and USA for Nike, Germany and France/Argentina for Adidas, England for Umbro)
It is nice to see that now some of the companies are making the kits look different and individual despite the fact that the kits are still just the same. I think it\'s safe to say there will never be another world cup like \'98 (or Euro \'96 and 2000 for that matter) when no two nike or adidas shirts were of the same design.