Lets face it adidas is boring when it comes to football kits..standard 3 Stripes. Bs..time maybe its time Clubs decide what outfit to go with Admiral..UMBRO.NIKE..ETC ETC..
I completely agree with this from a fans perspective, but as FireFan stated, there is too much money coming into the league from Adidas. It will not happen.
Nobody remembers how difficult it was for fans of smaller teams to get merchandise in the pre-adidas days? If MLS goes with different brands, get ready for the smaller teams to get even more boring templates.
Before we signed Hristo Stoichkov it was impossible to get a white jersey. So it took a player like Hristo to get jerseys in stores. So if the league goes back to find your own supplier, it's going to take a player like that to get your teams jerseys in stores.
Yes, precisely because of deals like the one with adidas. If we go back to separate suppliers, get ready for certain teams with less leverage to get treated as second class citizens the same as smaller clubs in leagues all around the world. Or do you think the Earthquakes, Dynamo, MNUFC, and Rapids would get the same treatment as LAFC, the Galaxy, NYCFC, Atlanta, and Sounders?
I care and you make a good argument but none of those teams you listed should be treated like second class citizens. The only reason they would be is because their own ownerships already treat them like that. Absentee owners and clueless front offices are the only things holding those teams back from being like Portland. Obviously NY and LA are going to have an advantage but there is no reason Houston should be any different than Seattle.
Haha! Someone should post the classic photo when Dallas was the Burn and KC was the Wiz(ards). Throw in the Galaxy and Tampa Bay. One could not say that the uniforms were cookie cutter.
It would be nice, but it’s just not going to happen. The days of multiple jersey suppliers in American sports are gone. If Adidas end their deal Nike, Umbro, New Balance, Puma, or Under Armor would replace them.
It's not the manufacturers we need to blame, per se, rather it's the lack of the clubs having/wanting the say in demanding something more than off the shelf material.
When teams are owned as league franchises instead of being a truly independent club, naturally the league dictates who has a say.
But what's preventing the league or teams from simply demanding a little more control? Or at least being mindful of some things like "Hey, adidas, the red on this year's jersey isn't the same as last year and we'd rather keep it the same." That teams don't demand that level of input or control suggests they don't care enough. That adidas trots out retreads and bizarre color schemes suggests they don't care, either. Just make the sale.
What is keeping franchises from demanding more control? MLS HQ I presume. If owners on that board had a will for evolving they would, but they won't because life is too cush to step beyond their boundaries. Plus there is not a more hardcore demand of accountability beyond social media. If the press (TV especially) were more critical of the league, maybe that bad PR would force a hand at least. I'm all-in for adidas as a consumer but what we are seeing in MLS and to an extent globally with clubs abroad is a stain on many brains. The cookie-cutter template mentality is tiring.
Adidas uses a more diverse set of kit templates than anyone else right now. Quite frankly I think most of the whining about this year comes from the fact that most teams chose to update their home kit in 2012 when the league switched to one kit per year instead of two kits every two years, so most teams are updating their away kits, so most are white. And quite frankly, more plain-simple looking kits are in-style right now, which was a trend that mostly started with adidas's main competitor, Nike.
If you look at the Australian A-League, who had an exclusive contract with Reebok until the end of the 2010/2011 season, you'll see that most clubs* ended up getting bespoke, specifically-designed shirts once they were free to find their own technical suppliers. *The only clubs who continued to play in standard, off-the-peg templates were those that signed with adidas, Nike, and Puma. The adidas deal with the MLS is unequivocally bad in that it allows the Germans to monopolize the market and fleece fans with authentic and replica jerseys, which are unheard of in Europe where only the big three (adidas/Nike/Puma) and Kappa make the distinction for big contracts. Having multiple suppliers bid for a contract will allow for better deals to be closed wherein clubs themselves get more responsibility to avoid lowly templates (Orlando and Cincinnati are the main victims of templates this year), as well as more diverse fashion on offer (notice how all sleeves in the league are bare this year? This is so that adidas keeps a bigger profit margin in manufacturing). Additionally, you avoid situations such as the embarassing fact that most every goalie last year wore the same blue top with different crests and sponsors applied and 2019's shared collars (NYCFC, Crew, Galaxy all have the same collars, as an example). Yes, the adidas deal does allow for centralized merch (mlsstore dot com) and money to be distributed reasonably equally, but the reality is that adidas is a sh*te brand with little to no inspiration or regard for clubs and fans
You are quite right, the 1%, the creme de la creme of European football enjoys the same distinction. Clubs like Cambridge United and Northampton Town are signed with Puma and Nike but do not get authentic/replica shirts; it's really only at the top where the distinction is made. Freedom to negotiate their own deals - this could include more creative input, running their own retail operations or handing these off for convenience, not to mention that teams with big fanbases could leverage their sales potential to get more money from technical suppliers. Not to mention that Nike/adidas/Puma/New Balance/etc. vying for the same contract and putting in bids might get some extra money in the till.