...most of the teams now have a good color scheme and general design. One nagging problem is the number of teams have both a crest and giant team name letters, creating a cluttered look. I really wish the Metrostars and Galaxy would lose either the letters or the crest (preferably the former, although the Metros really need a new crest). In general I think the strong points of MLS team images are the colors and design. The weak points are the logos themselves, the team names, and the clutter factor mentioned above.
Do any teams have jerseys with collars? I could be wrong, but I don't think any do. IMHO collars almost always make the jersey look nicer.
Good point. I think they are terrible on soccer jerseys. I think MLS is worried about creating an identity. That takes time, just like rivalries. You can't fabricate them. If you create good kits with crests (without names), people will still learn which club is which. They'll have to pay attention more to do it, and that would probably be better for MLS in the long run. Keeping curious viewers tuned in for an extra 30 seconds or much longer cuz they don't know who is who. And, the crest is identity enough.
Collars always look cool and are good to let the air in. I know some playes that prefer the collars tight to the neck, but I prefer mine with a collar so I can let my skin take a breather. As far as teams with collars in the MLS: DALLAS BURN! El Chapulin Colorado
The biggest problem with the MLS team kits is that many teams don't even have a stable kit design whether stripes, solid shirt, halved, or with the sleeves a different color - it seems to change from season to season. This is unfortunate since it detracts from team identity for the casual fan.
Columbus just got rid of the black jersey that had a collar for the high-tech new ones. However, our jerseys have remained similar throughest the past seasons, and there is familiarity when wearing a Crew jersey.
fire jerseys have remained rather similar, we did use to have a collar, but not at present time (i don't believe our road whites do) i happened to like bradley's notion of more color for the road uni's... most are basically white we got a whole rainbow to work with, have some fun... give teams identities, not identical twins
Well, u can't say the jerseys didn't improve (96' & 97' was awful!) I personally think the fire & miami have (miami had) the best jerseys. I didn't like Tampa's jerseys. And Colorado looks like they're suffocating in theirs.
I have said this several times and I'll keep saying it until they change it or until my therapist says its time to let it go but LA's logo sucks. Not only is the supposed crest shaped like a ninja star but in the center of said ninja star it has a golf ball. I cannot imagine what the idiot who designed it was thinking. Now if LA was named the Los Angeles Ninjas I could understand. LA next year will have a beautiful new stadium to play in, I think it would be a great time to relaunch the team, keep the name if you want, but redesign the uniforms. Oh, and for the first game in the new stadium to hype things up maybe they could bring back that actor from Melrose Place to play a few minutes. In my closet I hold a treasured tape collection from the first three or four years of the league. I have one game on tape, I think it was against the Metrostars, but the Melrose Place guy got some playing time. Classic.
I think LA's name and logo are an attempt to copy the old Cosmos. The Cosmos logo was better - but both have a "swirl" look.
I think this would be terrible. It's one of a few things I like better about MLS. Why would anyone want a giant ad in the middle of a jersey? Especially when the sponsors change... Personally, it surprises the hell out of me that it's an American league that has not stooped to such commercialization. So, you think, instead of "Dallas Burn" in the middle of the jersey... there should be a little, dinky Burn logo on the left chest and a GIANT FREAKIN' TONY THE TIGER FACE as the main focal point of the jersey. Ok... yeah. This has the stench of Euro wannabe to me.
Agreed. I like a traditional look, but the practice of making a sponsor's name the most prominent thing on your jersey is crass.
Good point. During the allstar game delay, when they showed the clip of the first goal in the first MLS game the unis were unrecognizable. Even the Crew, which has by far the strongest color identity, has changed the kits from year to year. They had white and yellow aways, black and yellow homes, now it's just yellow and yellow everywhere. Just keep it steady and work on the awful logos--except DC's and the Fire's, which is kind of clever and works well.
So is the current white DCU jersey. I think the problem is lack of colors. Jeff Bradley is right, there are too many all-white kits. I like Columbus' yellow. Why not give a team a gold, light grey, or light blue alternate?
The Metros need a new color scheme, most definately a new logo and a new stadium. That pretty much sums it all up.
Agreed. But who says it has to be a light alternative? Take the Revs, for example. This year they started wearing red socks with the home kit, but in past years it was all blue, with an all white away uniform. If they wore an all red uniform for away games, they'd only clash with a couple of teams--Dallas, Chicago and Metro. For those away games they could wear white (or even the blue). Most other teams could do something similar with their secondary colors, although it would be nice to see teams do something other than have shirts-shorts-socks all in the same color. San Jose could have an Arsenal-style uniform by ditching the black shorts, and wear an away jersey with the blue sleeves on a white jersey with blue shorts. Tom
Right now there are too few colors. We don't need another blue team. If they are going to change colors, they should at least change to a color no one else uses. There is still no grey, purple, or orange team.
I agree. Colorado has to stay green. I think the Metrostars uniforms would be fine if there were more stripes. Look at Juventus. They put larger stripes, and their uniforms suck this year.
OH yea....The symbols of only teams are remotely acceptable. Those two teams are the Chicago Fire, and DC United. No joke, every other team needs to redesign their logos at least. The Metrostars are a joke.
NEVER ad the sponsor logo on the Front. U.S. sports teams always have either their city or team name on the front of the jersey. The only exception may be the Cubs home jersey, but they've been around for 100 odd years (and virtually championship free that whole time). MLS teams need marketplace identity and that identity should NOT be Frosted Flakes. Nothing against them -- I'm pleased they're sponsoring. But that does nothing for imprinting soccer onto the U.S. sporting consciousness. Even as a soccer die-hard one of the things I hate about watching a match from another nation (except for the big clubs -- Barca, Real Madrid, Liverpool, ManU, etc.) is not know which side is which when I tune in. It shouldn't take 10 minutes to figure that out. We're there now. Fine - talk about the design of jerseys, color schemes, etc., but leave the sponsor logo off the front and keep some sort of team or geographic identifier there. If we're still desperate for $$$$ in 50 years, then let's talk again.
TOTALLY AGREE!!! It's about the team, not the sponser. & it would make it look European. It's not right for us.