In discussions with fellow kit fanatics I often refer glibly to “Daily Mail readers” who complain about clubs releasing new replica kits and being forced to buy them for their children.
I thought this absolutely ridiculous argument had gone forever but I was gobsmacked when after googling the new England kit I discovered an article by the Mail that informed us that “The FA have also been criticised for changing their home strip again”!!!
For God’s sake – just WHO has criticised the FA about this!? Probably no-one! England change their kit every 2 years. Is that really such a problem? Get with it and accept it Daily Mail: clubs change their kits on a regular basis and replica versions are available. FACT. Drop this stupid obsession with clubs supposedly ‘ripping’ off their supporters by releasing new shirts.
Although I personally think a two year kit life span should be introduced this is just because I feel it gives the design a bit of time to settle in and become familiar at a club before it is retired and a new, fresher outfit brought in to great anticpation. It makes the kit more special. Its not because I think introducing a new kit every season is a rip-off! I love seeing the new kits as does probably every football fan in the land!
11 Replies to “Anyone read the Daily Mail?”
Read the Daily Mail? Trying to think of a polite way of saying this…er…hmm…too many swear words coming to mind…no…no I don’t.
As for the kit debate, it’s fair to say that about 7 or 8 years ago there was a frenzy of kits being released left, right and centre with special editions, european versions etc coming out once a month (exaggertating here!). Man U came in for a lot of stick yet they now only change their home and away kit every 2 years and like England, stagger it so there’s something fresh every season without going overboard. CCFC release brand new home AND away kits every season, but then one always has the choice of just not buying it…ah that old chestnut of freedom of choice…not a Daily Mail trait…
2 seasons is the right lifespan for a kit.
Totally agree with the ideal lifespan being two years, especially for the home shirt. England probably change their kit less than any club I’d have thought, hardly headline grabbing stuff.
I also agree about the 2 year span, and maybe change the away kit on alternate years. However my team have changed their home and away kits every season now since 1994, and fans seem to love it. I would imagine next years shirt will be one of its best ever sellers as after 15 years with Errea, Adidas will be our shirt manufacturers!
…and as Ive forgot to mention who my team is…its the mighty Middlesbrough FC!
The Daily Mail is one of those “shock” newspapers that doesn’t report the news, but, based on their demographics, just tells the readership what they want to hear. That is, readers of the Daily Mail are *already* the type to moan about the price of football shirts, so the paper might as well feed the goat, so to speak. Yet, they don’t complain that new mobile phones come out every six months or so, or that your computer is effectively superseded every 18 months, because I suppose they’re not “fashionable” things to moan about.
Despite this, I actually think 2 years is a wee bit too short, but not because of the price – I like the excitement generated by genuinely new shirts. For me, shirts for me define an era, a time period which lasts longer than a couple of years. So, if someone shows me the infamous “reversed-Arsenal” Southampton kit, home or away, I immediately think of the team of the early 1980s (even though I’m not a Southampton fan). But show me a Chelsea kit from the last 5-6 years, and I’d be stumped to tell you which season it was from.
Personally, I think that the shirt life span should be three years instead of two for club shirts. I am OK with two years for the country shirts as they usually mark a campaign (world cup or Euro). Price has to be factored in with variety as well. We all know that these are changed as the major tool to push the brand. Manchester United only had that first AIG short for one year before changing it to the current version and they will change for next year. Three home shirts in four season? Overkill. I am a Celtic and Manchester United supporter and an American. My AIG shirts are currently radio active here and it will be some time before I can wear them. Nice shirts too. Shame. I am looking forward to the new United shirt but if it is what is rumored on the web, kind of a nod to the 1922-28 “V” shirt – I won’t be buying it. It will look like an old tennis sweater.
As for Celtic, its kind of hard to come up with a new hoops design that captures the public’s imagination every couple of years. I have come to the conclusion that Celtic should settle on a classic hoops design and follow the lead of the New York Yankees who have not changed the basic design of their classic pinstripes since 1915 and the NY design on the shirt since 1936 – One of the most classic and recognizable uniforms in sports.
Thanks for your message Mack – I never considered what it must be like to wear an AIG shirt in the US at the moment! Good job Freddie Mac don’t sponsor anyone! Interesting point you make about Celtic. On researching their kits its clear that you shouldn’t mess with the hoops. I think Nike have got the message now but some of the 90s Umbro ones were ‘challenging’ to say the least.
Graeme – although I disagree with you on the ‘longer than 2 years lifespan’ I think your last para is spot on – thats exactly how I feel and you’ve summed it up very well. Eras are almost more important than seasons in some respects and kits mark those. However, I guess nowadays squads change so much from season to season perhaps its not surprising kits change so frequently now too. Just the pace of modern life I guess! We need to slow it down!