This is interesting. Seattle wore their “light”, and so did Cincinnati. Apparently Cincinnati’s “dark” doesn’t provide enough contrast to Seattle’s “light.” So, if the league mandates this new requirement, I find it ironic that they still have to “step in” in this instance. So what’s the point? Why not just let competition decide that, say, red vs black is fine? (Red vs royal blue, and royal blue vs black would also be good contrast and make watching more colorful.) And, if you will pardon my ignorance/laziness, can someone direct me to where this “new rule” thing is spelled out?
Houston would have proposed wearing Black for this game then it was up to RSL to propose what they would wear. If Houston had worn Orange I think RSL would wear white as i think the Orange kits get darker when they get sweaty and the refs don't like that and would have pushed RSL to whites. But who knows.
I think Cinci may have proposed they wear their white kit in Seattle. Seattle's green is considered light be the league so a Light vs. Light would have to have been checked off on. I don't know if it's listed anywhere tbh. I know about it from talking friends at club and league.
"Competition" is PRO. They do a review for the full year at the beginning of the season and the refs double check a few days before each game. I think there is a way to make changes too, but I don't know that for sure.
I remain unconvinced that Houston would have been allowed to wear Orange. I think if the Dynamo could have worn Orange they would have done so. We'll see what happens in the future. We'll see what Seattle does in Week 2. The rest of the games look pretty predictable. Seattle v. Colorado Will we see Green (light) v. Red (dark)? Or Green (light) v. White (light) again? I guess Seattle might go Black so Colorado would definitely wear White.
IMO, this whole thing is stupid. In this past weekend’s games... NE could have worn navy vs DAL’s red, and RSL could have worn red vs HOU’s black (or a yellow second color instead of a white second color, since yellow and not white is part of their color scheme). If PHI had worn their navy, TOR should have been able to wear their red. White jerseys for so many team’s second jersey is so dull and unimaginative. Before, it was easier to ID teams not in their home kits. Now there are carbon copies. Also, when it comes down to what is always most important—$$$—the plethora of white has got to be bad for jersey sales. Will anyone buy Cincy’s white jersey? I’d consider an orange one, but not white (if I weren’t a Crew fan[emoji16]). Would Rapids fans be more likely to buy sky blue in place of white? I would bet a lot of fans would rather buy a black jersey if that were an option in, say, Toronto and Chicago, just like that option which they have this cycle in Seattle and Houston. Even a grey option like NYRB has would be better than white. Why did the league go to this stupid plan anyway?? It wasn’t broke; it didn’t need fixing.
The grey kit that the Fire had over the last two seasons was definitely the bet away option they've had - including the navy kit. There's no way in hell I'm buying the white kit. Even with the light vs dark mandate, there are plenty of options that could get around white: grey, sky, pink, lime, yellow, gold, peach. Every team gets their primary and then a secondary that ties into their colors, but is light (or dark in the case of LA, Seattle, Columbus, and Houston). Columbus, Houston, and Seattle are rocking with no whites; it's really not that hard. Having all white kits makes having white hoops or stripes pretty difficult, if you think about it. More color means more variety, which hopefully, eventually means more sales. I understand that part of this comes from slow sales on kits. Maybe extend the cycle for the home kits beyond two years (they shouldn't change that drastically anyway) and start cranking out some good change kits. I think Seattle keeps getting bold secondaries and was previously getting thirds due to the fact that people buy them. Maybe if the focus was on making a solid four season home kit and rocking different alt kits every two years, sales would pick up. Realistically, how many variations of a team's home jersey do most people buy?
And as it has been mentioned before, it isn't that white uniforms are always bad. It is just when teams use white as an automatic secondary choice uniform, it is just lazy. Especially when white is paired with white shorts and white socks. I at least would be more forgiving if teams with the white jersey would pair them with alternate colored shorts. Like burgundy in Colorado, navy or yellow for RSL, etc (someone else can make out a list if wanted). Just little things can go a long way.
As far as I'm concerned there are only 7 colors: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Black, and White. I will concede shades of those but only things like light blue or dark green. It's Red to me.
Galaxy don't even have their primary available for sale because of the switch to 5 stars. People are snatching up anything with 5 stars.
Do you think Dynamo wrote the black kit because they can't match the undershirts to the color of the new tops?
I guess that's an alternate theory. And since I already brought up "clash" in this thread what is the deal with "top"? I'm assuming that's another British-ism that has crept into American soccer. "Top", in my long American life, has almost always referred to women's clothing. Men's clothing for the upper part of their body is a "shirt", or in sports usage a "jersey". "Sweater" has some relevance in hockey. OK, "tank top" as a combination term for that particular garment is acceptable. But that's it. Hearing men's clothing referred to as a "top" is just very strange to my ear. I seem to mostly hear it in soccer contexts so I'm assuming that it is more of British usage. Am I the only one?
What about brown? Vancouver's brown kit a few years ago was legitimately one of my favorites because you hardly ever see that color used. I also like Wyoming's (NCAA) and Cleveland's (NFL) use of the color. Too many brown teams is crap, but one thrown in occasionally -when executed well, like the Whitecaps - looks sharp.
Do you have a source for this? It would be crazy to imagine that they'd remove the possibility of Red v Blue for MTL-TOR or NYR-NYC.
Light vs Dark is the default for the league. The Clubs can propose what they wear do NYCFC/NYRB can both say we want to wear Red vs Blue and as long as competition group approves they will wear it.
A slight stretch on this post. Much like the Sounders (Current) Home jersey all the Anthem Bomber Jackets this year are all unique in that the tape on the shoulders and sleeves are from a continuous roll of fabric.
Ha! You probably think Merlot and Malbec are the same. Amber Lager and Red Ale.... Primary colors are like modern art. Lacking.
Wine is wasted on me. I'll admit that. I like red wine. The exact type is not that big a deal. As far as beer I like lots of different kinds. The color of it is not much of a factor. My favorite type is probably browns so I'll add that to my color list. But not tan, chocolate, or burnt umber. Just brown. One of my favorite jokes here in Texas is that the two most popular colleges wear brown and dark brown. If the UT and A&M fans get the joke they don't seem to like it but it works for me.