When I look at what Nike did for the last two World Cups and the teams it supplies compared to Adidas, I think Nike is much more cookie cutter in its approach. Puma is pretty uniform as well. The only thing Nike does better is differentiate the number fonts. There is no other Adidas branded uniform that looks like the Chicago one above. That means your aversion is based on the three shoulder and short stripes, which I think is a bit odd. For the Olympics and the NCAA, Adidas has to produce uniforms without the stripes and they look a little weird to me.
MLS would be crazy to not let this go to a bid at the end of the contract. Nike and Under Armour is going to throw some cash at MLS.
I think Nike is content with the National Team and I think Under Armour would have to overpay and find it really difficult to make it worthwhile financially, so I don't see it being a smart move.
The three stripes were the only part designed by Adidas, the rest was a fan design. That said yeah the large part of my dislike is due to the three stripes. Its merely a branding thing, and often interrupts the rather than complents the jersey design. Its as if they design a jersey (some of which are perfectly acceptable) and then just slap the stripes on top of it with no regard of how it affects the aesthetic. I realize its a really minor point to gripe about, but I'm doing it anyways.
The fashion of all this concerns me the least. I care mostly about the $$$ then about the availability of the merchandise (which impacts the $$$) then I care what it all looks like - how thick the stripes are this year - if it has collars - etc... MLS stands to make a $hit load off the next Adidas contract. Just look at how much Adidas and Nike have spent to outfit Manchester United these past few years and into the future. What's interesting is that there is a wide gulf between MLS' ability to lock in big bucks with Adidas as witnessed in the last deal - and by the Galaxy's Herbalife contract - but then on the flip side you have a team like San Jose that doesn't have a uniform sponsor despite having all the buzz of Avaya stadium and having been around MLS long enough to warrant a decent deal in the market. Tells me the market for MLS is still in its infancy and MLS is not able to sell it's value or people aren't yet confident to buy it. That should eventually change as almost all of the indicators flip into green.
same can be said for adidas, which means it would makes sense to put it out for bid. I am rooting for Nike or Under Armour personally though it's not like I hate adidas. MLS needs to maximize every deal.
I think Nike might really fight for it...especially with the jersey selling machines starting to come state side. When this contract is up is about the time that CR7 will be coming over as well.
I remember the days when Nike was the MetroStars supplier. You couldn't get jerseys until mid-season, in many cases. The practice jerseys were always more appealing than the actual home/road jerseys and you would rarely find any MLS merchandise in Niketown. Availability and variety of products is extremely important.
That's why if as a league you're going to open up the league to multiple uniform suppliers you take the league teams and divide them up into groups to form packages and get the apparel companies to bid on becoming the exclusive uniform supplier of those teams for x amount of time. You want to be the supplier of 5 time MLS Cup Champion LA Galaxy?--ok, but in order to equip them you have to bid on a package that also includes San Jose and team X. Most apparel companies wont care about San Jose but they'll probably fall backward at the opportunity of equipping the Galaxy --or Seattle or Red Bull or NY Citeh or any of the other "big" teams in the league. Money from the bid process on the different team packages goes directly to the league to be distributed among all the teams. In this way both the small and big teams in the league benefit from the process. Stipulations such as "if you win a bid package you must make all the team jerseys equally available to the public for purchase" can be added to the contract.
The last two new Colorado jerseys haven't been available until midseason (just this month they got the new gold road jerseys in)
I'm just not sure. With the USSF virtually locked up, I think they are content. Nike seems to be pulling back quite a bit and I wouldn't expect it to go nuts on MLS.
What's lost by most posters here debating over templates and three stripes is that the Adidas deal is far more than just equipment and cash. If the league were to split up the uniforms, they'd have to hire a bunch of people to take on a lot of licensing and enforcement duties that Adidas took over in 2006 with the league-wide contract. Prior to 2006 when teams, referees, the league ball and so on were all individually done deal, there was little cash involved. Most of the deals were straight up merchandise. At least the league didn't have to pay for balls, socks, or coaches polos. The manufacturers tried to make their money on merchandise sales - or if they were licensing to a dog of a team, they just didn't make any merchandise available (Colorado and New England come to mind). The real landmark change in 2006 with Adidas taking on everything is that Adidas became a subsidiary of MLS in that all merchandise licensing is vetted through Adidas. Having a single point of contact with a single set of legal hurdles and questions over category or turf has streamlined the process for independent companies to enter into the consumer space. Additionally, the 2006 contract began to pay the league real dollars on top of all of the "payment in kind". I fully expect the next contract to take another leap forwards in value, but nobody is paying any DP salaries with Adidas money. Team equipment budgets have exploded as MLS has become more "big league". Not only are they outfitting full first teams with a wider array of equipment, the team staffs have exploded in size. A polo here, a polo there, and it begins to add up. Add the growing number of Academy teams and now USL2 affiliates, and it becomes very easy for a team to burn through several million dollars worth of gear. I think if you want to debate the sartorial side of things, You Be The Don or MLS General would be a better place to do it. MLS and Adidas are very tightly entertwined business partners. There would be pretty significant costs to MLS to break up that kind of relationship. A switch to a different partner is far more likely, in my opinion, than a fracturing. But the number of companies that can handle the non-gear side of things the way Adidas does is a very short list.
http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/story/chelsea-signs-87-million-a-year-kit-deal-with-nike-051716 Wow, just wow... I still find it crazy that a yearly contract for a club like Chelsea ($87 m/yr) is bigger than the entirety of MLS (~$25 m/yr). ManU, Barca, I get, but not Chelsea. I mean they are ranked 10th in the BPL this year. Time for MLS to renew early in 2017? or do they wait for 2018 with new clubs coming in? Either way this has gotta be a big renewal.
Not sure if you're just taking a dig at Chelsea because of their awful season, but obviously on season of mediocre results doesn't have an impact here. They're a London based club with a massive international following and a billionaire owner. The results will return soon enough and millions of people will be watching them on TV and buy merchandise.
I assume companies like Nike have information on the amount of shirts traditionally Chelsea, or any other club, sells on average before they make a bid. Usually successful companies do a due-diligence before acting.
Nike isn't stupid (well, maybe they are). Regardless, Miazga jerseys will be flying off the shelves in no time.
If I recall correctly, Adidas, helped save the league from folding with a kit deal back around 2001/2. This, plus cash infusion from the Hunt's and the Kraft's and the SUM deal kept the league from sinking into the abyss.
I was making two points: My point was this seemed high for Nike and Chelsea. Chelsea is ranked #7 in most valuable clubs, but this contract puts then much higher in jersey contracts. In this case value does not equal brand recognition, and that is what Nike is paying for. But I still think Other clubs have higher brand recognition than Chelsea. I'm curious what the total jersey sales/brand recognition is of MLS (as a league) vs an individual club like Chelsea. I'm not sure there is a way to quantify this, but based on this contract i'm sure MLS will be asking for more money on their next contract. FYI, we are due for a new contract in 2018, but last time we renegotiated early. Will we again?
Unless Adidas comes in with an incredible number, why rush it? Let it run out and then open the bidding to everyone.
Another reason Adidas will most likely re-up for a long term partnership is that their MLS relationship has paid very handsome dividends in the US youth soccer market. The US is now Adidas's top soccer market, in large part to their dominance in club youth soccer- balls, uniforms, equipment. There are many product tie-ins to MLS, such as the hugely popular Glider ball that is omnipresent in youth soccer. As I like to say, Nike bet against MLS and lost. I do not see Adidas conceding the youth soccer market to Nike or Under Armour and their partnership with MLS is very important to their strategy.
strategy wise, I see Adidas as the global soccer leader, working to break into the US market. While Nike owns the US market in most other sports and is looking for global soccer appeal. Nike seems to be picking key teams and seems mostly unwilling to bet on a whole league. Adidas on the other hand seems happy to invest not just in key teams, but in the league AND its grassroots youth leagues.
The presence of Under Armour should help MLS up the deal significantly. The NFL was flush with TV money when FOX's grab for rights sent the fees into the stratosphere. FOX never intended to break-even on the deal, just to leverage the imprimatur of the NFL as proof that the network had joined the big three as a real national network.