I would guess the black kits are our away kits, most of our away games are in far more temperate parts of the US. But FWIW, none of our home games are until well after dark.
It'll be weird seeing him in a Union shirt this season. And because he's with the USMNT right now, we still haven't had a sighting.
We don't really have an away kit, we have a secondary one. Last year the Dynamo wore the orange shirts for 13 of our 17 away league games. And 16 of our home games (we wore the red 3rd kit for one league game.). We could have a black secondary shirt, you would just almost never see it on the field. I'd still be very surprised if we have any sort of black shirt this year. We'll see.
I'd be interested to see the numbers but it seems like you're right there are no longer home/away uniforms in MLS but primary, secondary and tertiary.
True enough if, it helps that no other team in MLS has our color scheme so it makes it easier to always stick with the primary kit. If there is a black kit, it's gonna be primarily for sales. Nevertheless, I'll be buying one if they do happen.
That's what the rumored 3rd for the Union is supposed to be, black. I can't see how/when they'll even wear it since it's not that different than navy blue.
Which is how it is done in a lot of soccer leagues. Personally I am a fan of this, and would love to see it in most sports. Since we are well beyond the days of black and white TV, what's the point in having designated home and away uniforms? Why can't the Vikings and Packers face each other in their iconic purple and green uniforms? The Cowboys wear white at home and on the road in most situations; it's iconic. Why can't the Yankees wear their pinstripes against pretty everybody in MLB, regardless of location? Whose uniform has a conflict with the Sharks' teal in the NHL? Precisely. Yep Ugh. There is nothing worse than a black for black's sake jersey. If your primary color is navy, then black should never be in the equation. Black and navy do not go together; they clash. This goes for that ugly as shit Galaxy third from a few years back too. It's black OR navy; never both. Lip service and pretext... The real reason.
They wore the white 3rds against Everton and Schalke, but not against Aston Villa. They also wore the dark navy homes against ManUtd, Real Madrid, Chivas Guadalajara, but probably because the alternates didn't exist yet. And as much as my memory serves, they wore their navies in the USOC home games versus HCI and SKC.
Just for curiosity I looked up the Union's home/away ratio last year: Regular Season: Navy: 14 home, 14 away Light Blue: 2 home, 4 away White: 0 home, 0 away Home appearances for the light blue was the home opener and a seemingly random reason against San Jose at the end of April. The away games that the team wore them were Portland, DC, Chivas and New England. US Open Cup: Navy: 3 home, 1 Away Light Blue: 0 home, 0 away White: 0 home, 0 away Friendlies: Navy: 1 home, 2 Away Light Blue: 0 home, 0 away White: 1 home, 0 away
Well that does make the Union jerseys a resounding Primary Navy (83.3%), Secondary Signal Blue (14.3%), and Tertiary White (2.4%). I think we will see a similar pattern this year as well. The Navy kits are somewhat iconic, in that they are easily recognizable with the gold front panel. I think the black will probably be a great jersey, but just not necessary. I doubt we will see it more than a couple of times. They will continue to make these because guys like me will purchase them. It is totally sales driven and not a functional kit.
yeah, I'm a bit curious as to how often they will be used.. but I'd put money on Navy a vast majority of the time.... in 2011 when the White 3rds for the Union were introduced they pretty much straight up replaced the 2010 gold jerseys all together and became the away... the Golds only appeared in reserve league games during 2011.... then in 2012 the Whites were more or less completely replaced by the Light Blue.... (with the exception of the one friendly) I can't see a black jersey working as a clash against the Navy, so I think the Light Blues secondaries will break the trend and actually see another year on the field.... but that extremely limits the use of the Blacks... especially given the Union's history of pretty much only using two shirts per season.
I'm probably getting my years confused but I thought the Union wore white at home against Vancouver, who was in blue. I just remember being confused in that game. Was that 2 years ago now? It's all becoming a blur.
Sounders kit is sick, hopefully their home kit is nice and they don't overdo the puke green. NYRB kit is as usual boring and that stupid logo is taking up the entire freaking jersey. Also anyone know why they can put the sponsor on the back of their jersey too? Thought MLS banned this? perhaps b/c its the "team" and not the company
You played 16 home games and 18 away games? Either your math is off or there's something I'm not getting here. ------RM
He was just speaking about last season. The white shirt was worn at home for the 2011 home opener. The Union for the last two seasons have used their home opener to show off new merchandise: 2011 opener vs Vancouver they wore white, and 2012 opener they wore the baby blue against Colorado. It's all about letting people see the shirts so they can immediately buy them.
I was thinking about this while writing a post for The HDC naming rights thread. Will MLS ever clarify the rules on that? Or do we just have to wait until Red Bull sells out? For what it's worth, I'm not anti-Red Bull or anything, just curious. It's an odd quirk.
They also wore the light blues the week before (Match 12th) in the first game of the season at Portland.