This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Kicking Off The EPL

EPL hedBy Phil Hecken, with Mark Emge

[Quick note: please make sure to scroll down to vote in our Best Home Uniform In Major League Baseball Poll immediately following the EPL post–PH]


The EPL (that’s the English Premier (soccer) League), is a pretty big deal across the pond, and even here in the States. And the since the EPL season is kicking off this weekend, I thought it might be a good idea to check out the uniforms (what they call “kits”) of that league. Although I know almost nothing about European or English footy, there are many UW readers who do. As such, I’m joined by Mark Emge, who has agreed to give us the rundown of the uniforms for the upcoming season. So with that, I’ll turn this portion of the post over to Mark, who’ll take us through the 2010-11 kits:


EPL Uniform Breakdown
courtesy of Mark Emge

The 2010-2011 English Premier League season will be starting on August 14th and I have been given the honor of providing a brief overview of this season’s kits. Just to clear the air from the start, I am a yank, a Midwest yank, raised on baseball and apple pie, although soccer was also the first sport that I ever played. I fell in love with the EPL eight years ago after the 2002 World Cup and have slowly started to embrace everything English. Strangely enough I’ve even started to appreciate British humor.

You will need to forgive me as during this overview I will be mixing my British and American vocabulary. I’m sure Brits will gringe as I flub proper football terminology, and Yanks will get upset when I call uniform sets “kits”. I am strangely caught between two worlds, afraid to call futbol, football for fear of being arm tackled, and afraid to call it soccer for fear of being kicked in the nuts.

In an attempt to avoid any type of bias, I’ve compiled this review by addresses teams in alphabetical order. Also, since not all teams feature a third jersey or “alternate”, I will not cover them unless they do something particularly unique (ie. Chelsea).

Arsenal: The Arsenal home kit features a return to their traditional white sleeves. For supporters, this is how Arsenal is supposed to look. The home kits previously featured white stripes running down the sleeves and sides of the shirt. The Arsenal away/change look will take some getting used to. The gold shirt featuring burgundy pinstriping is paired with burgundy short and pinstriped socks.

Aston Villa: Aston Villa will be featuring a new jersey sponsor for the 2010-2011 season, FxPro. This new sponsor doesn’t effect the look and feel of the kits as the club’s previous sponsor was only featured for the last two years. Along with this new sponsor, Aston Villa is adding some checkerboard side-panels and a black away jersey. The checker pattern works well on the home shirt, but looks oddly out of place on the change jerseys.

Birmingham City: During the off-season Birmingham City featured an online poll to decide the team’s new home shirt. Design-wise there seems to be quite a bit going on with this kit, but I tend to think that the elements work well together. The change kit features a much cleaner look. These kits will be Birmingham’s first with the Chinese sportswear company Xtep. The team’s previous kits were produced by Umbro.

Blackburn: Nothing too special about the new Blackburn kits. The home kit is very similar to last year’s shirt, while the away kit features a striking red shirt.

Blackpool: This club was promoted to the Premier League after finishing 6th in the Football League Championship and winning the play-off final. From what I can see it seems that Blackpool will be featuring a different jersey sponsor for its home and change kits.

Bolton Wanderers: The Bolton Wanderers are one of the few teams whose uniform manufacturer is Reebok. They are even a stadium sponsor for the team. Bolton’s home kit seems very similar to their uniforms from year’s past with only minor tweaks, one of which being the large Reebok logos on the shoulders. Their change kit is much of the same in blue.

Chelsea: To the relief of Chelsea fans, the club has ditched the Adidas Manssiere jersey template and have moved toward a more classic look. The new home shirt offers a small hint of red in the collar and sleeves, just enough to fire up their supporters. I rather like this shirt, and the red even seems appropriate since red is used as a highlight color in their crest. The officially released images of the change kit give the impression that the entire kit is black with orange highlights. But other images make large portions of this shirt look gray. I’m curious how they look during game-play. I was relieved to find that this was not Chelsea’s third jersey, but that relief was short-lived when I came to find that this was.

Everton: Thankfully the retro V-neck shirts from last year did not carry over into the new season. They have been replaced with a solid blue shirt for the home kit. Last season’s “hint of brilliance” did light a spark with their supporters. As a result Everton has decided to create an eye-searing, hot-pink shirt for the change kit.

Fulham: There is a new jersey manufacturer and sponsor at Craven Cottage as Fulham has switch from Nike to Kappa and from LG Electronics to FxPro, yes the same FxPro that sponsors Aston Villa.

Liverpool: Liverpool will be featuring a jersey sponsor other than Carlsberg for the first time since 1992 as Standard Chartered becomes their new sponsor. This is one instance where the jersey sponsor has become synonymous with the club. Many supporters say that the team doesn’t look like Liverpool without Carlsberg. The home, change and third jerseys look sharp enough, and it won’t take long before they are fully embraced.

Manchester City: The home kit features a very subtle change to the powder blue shirts as the white color is moved to the sleeves. The change kit features some rather interesting socks (birthday present for Paul?). Thankfully Manchester City will continue to use their third jersey from last season, which is a throwback to the clubs of the 1970’s. I love the alternate kit. I wish they wore it more often.

Manchester United: The red devils will be featuring a new jersey sponsor this season as AIG was replaced by AON. The white-collared home kit looks sharp, but the change kit looks to be a disaster. Nike has added an odd lightening bolt pattern to their goalkeeping jerseys this season and it seems that a variation of this detail has carried over into the Man U. away shirt.

Newcastle United: After spending a season down, Newcastle United are back in the top flight. Perhaps it was last year’s horrendous yellow kits or the bad press that Adidas received from Newcastle supports, but the 15 year marriage between Adidas and Newcastle has come to an end. The club’s new uniform provider is Puma. The home, away and third jerseys all look great, and let’s be thankful that not a one is yellow.

Stoke City: The potters have made a switch from Le Coq Sportif to Adidas but kept the signature red and white stripes. The away kit looks to be all navy blue.

Sunderland: The black cats have received a new uniform sponsor after switching from Boylesports to Tombola. The away kit features a much cleaner look, but almost appears too plain.

Tottenham: It is rumored that this will be the last year that Tottenham wears Puma. As a final hurrah, Puma has developed a throw-back uniform for Tottenham’s home kit. I’m not sure if it’s Puma’s affiliation with the WPS here in the states, or the diagonal lines, but this uniform impresses me as a women’s jersey. The away and third jerseys seem strong enough. Tottenham is also featuring a new jersey sponsor having switched from to Autonomy.

West Bromich: Another team making the leap to top flight, West Brom features a strong football look with a white and navy striped shirt. The solid black away kit is a bit of a disappointment.

West Ham United: The hammers are featuring a new uniform provider switching from Umbro to Macron. West Ham generally does a nice job of using the team’s colors across the home and away kits.

Wigan Athletic: Wigan’s home kit has moved away from the repeating blue and white stripe pattern and will feature a racing stripe pattern that, unfortunately, will continue onto the shorts. Wigan’s jersey sponsor is 188 Bet, the same sponsor as the Bolton Wanderers, which can make for some interesting viewing when the two teams play.

Wolverhampton Wanderers: Wolverhamption switched uniform providers from Le Coq Sportif to Burrda, but the look remains very much the same, with the away kits being a reverse of the home.


Terrific job on that, Mark. Thanks!


mlb unisMLB Home Uniform Poll

created by Uni Watch Pollster James Huening

“The Yankees have the best uniform in baseball!” I’m sure you’ve heard that phrase before. Most admit, the pinstripes are iconic and even those of us who hate the Yankees have gotta admit it’s a pretty good lookin’ uni. But, is it the best in the universe all sports baseball? Maybe, maybe not. It’s time for the Uni Watch readership to weigh in on that.

It’s been a while since we had a poll on Uni Watch. This one is a two parter. We’re going to ask you to tell us who has the Best Home Uniform In Major League Baseball. For this first round, which we’ll call the “elimination round,” we’re going to ask you to select up to TEN uniforms you feel are the BEST home uniforms in the bigs (you don’t need to select ten, but you can). From that, we’ll take the top nine vote getters, and resubmit them to you in the second round, at which time, you’ll be asked to vote again — for the best uni from the nine finalists. Based upon Uni Watch reader preferences, we will declare the team with the “Best Home Uni” in baseball. You may click on any picture if you require a closer look at their home uniform. Simple, right? Of course it is. We’ll keep the poll open through next week and then be back with the final nine. OK? OK!

Big thanks to Jimbo Huening for creating the poll.


Pirates Padres Baseball Well, that was…colorful

The San Diego Padres and the Pittsburgh Pirates had the opportunity to go brown versus gold yesterday, but alas, the Pirates chose to go with their too-narrow Pinstriped tops and black pajamas. I don’t get it, except for Andrew McCutchen, it appeared all the Buccos wore PJ’s (although Zach Duke tried to pull a fast one attempted to replicate hosiery, ending up with a huge two-in-one fail instead). When they played the A’s earlier this year, everyone went high cuffed and wore proper stirrups *Sigh.* And, regarding the pinstriped tops, it’s really not that difficult to get them correct (and why the hell haven’t they worn them with pinstriped pants as a throwback?). They’ve been screwing up the jersey for years, as pointed out so eruditely by Bill Henderson. Ah well, throw out the inaccuracies (ya know, because it’s all in good fun right?), and it was quite the uni-tacular. More pics of the game can be seen here.


That will do it for today — I apologize there is no ticker, but any submissions already sent to me will be put into Monday’s ticker. Feel free to post any “breaking” news or time-sensitive stories in the comments below. Big weekend for those of us who are football (the American kind) fans, as the preseason finally gets underway — don’t forget, the Colts are scheduled to break out their 1955 throwbacks on Sunday.

Have a nice Friday the 13th. Ek will take you through the weekend — Have a great one everyone!


The myth is that you put a Yankee uniform on a player and he becomes great. — Birdie Tebbetts


204 comments to Kicking Off The EPL

  • Matt B | August 13, 2010 at 8:26 am |

    Does Birmingham have a 3rd jersey? Blue and white are very common colors. What will they wear when they play at, say, Blackburn? Blue vs Blue/White or White vs Blue/White.

  • Timothy OMalley | August 13, 2010 at 8:34 am |

    No third for Birmingham, every other team has a shirt that will make sure they don’t clash. They’d wear white against everton on the road, while Everton would wear Pink at Birm. Same with other teams.

    Here is the Fulham away shirt

    as well as a better view of the home shirt

    • MG12 | August 13, 2010 at 9:14 am |

      Thanks for adding the link to the Fulham away jersey Tim. That kit was announce within the last couple days after I wrote the article.

      One additional update, Blackpool announced their away jersey. It seems that they will not be using two jersey sponsors. This new away kit is the inverse of their current home.


      • Timothy OMalley | August 13, 2010 at 10:48 am |

        Check out, it is just a scrolling list of kits from around the globe.

        The Man City kit(away) is fantastic and i’ve got mine already. The home shirt will be the fist i don’t buy in 6 years since it is so similar to last years. Can’t wait for tomorrow. Glad this article went up great job guys! Kits of the Champions League next week?

      • floormaster squeeze | August 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm |

        Fulham will have green third kits although they have not been formally announced.


        Birmingham, according to the Guardian, will have red third kits.

  • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 8:39 am |

    Preaching to the choir, I know, but this poll shows just how important hosiery can be to a team’s image. Nearly every one was a variation of maybe four designs. Other than the Cardinals and Blue Jays, who have the birds-on-a-bat and angry bird logos to set them apart, they basically all go by the same set of choices:

    1. Plain or pinstripes
    2. Wordmark across chest or primary logo over left chest
    3. If wordmark, baseball script, athletic block, or some humanist sans-serif font
    4. Piping or not

    That gives a total of sixteen possible uniform variations – not much more than half as many as there are teams, and there are really only five or six in use. You get a few tweaks, like the Reds putting their numbers on the right chest, but for the most part, everything above the ankles on a baseball uniform is very limited.

    On the other hand, stirrups really do set the teams apart, since they are always outside the white color family and can vary by any way in which stripes can appear on three inches of fabric.

    The best example of this is the Rays, even if the stirrups aren’t official. They have one of the plainest, most generic uniforms in the Majors: solid white, wordmark in athletic block, piping on the placket and collar. Add those stirrups though, and the uniform suddenly has more color and a stripe pattern no one else uses.

    The Giants, Cardinals, A’s, and now Rays all use interesting stirrup designs that add a strong visual and brand identity to otherwise generic uniform designs, which is why I included all of them in my top ten.

    Obviously not every team should be using striped or other alternative stirrups. It would look terrible against the teams that wear pinstripes, for example. However, there are way too many variations not in use for every other team to wear their primary color over white socks. It looks lazy and only detracts from the teams core visual identity.

    • Mark in Shiga | August 13, 2010 at 9:09 am |

      J, there’s one more important area for variation: the backs of the jerseys. Most teams have names on the backs, but some teams (I wish there were more) don’t.

      There’s also the choice between the “standard” block number font (Cardinals, Indians, Mets, Marlins, and many others), its full-block variation (Tigers), and a custom font. Very few custom number fonts look good — I think Cincinnati’s and the Rangers’ are overdone and look terrible, particularly for the names above the numbers, but other number fonts are really classy — the Red Sox’ timeless “McAuliffe” and the Cubs’ “Eurostile” variation really stand out. The Cubs’ font somehow always looks modern despite being almost unchanged for over 60 years.

      (EPL fans: do people ever protest the fact that the league mandates the same number font for all the teams? That takes a lot of individuality out, if you ask me.)

      I’ve argued this before, but I’d like to see more teams have only numbers on the backs, nice and big and visible from the stands. And with the numbers positioned correctly, not halfway into the guy’s pants, with a huge gap between the collar and the top of the number.

      Jackie Robinson Day really brings home what a nice, clean look it is. With this in mind, the Yankees, Red Sox, and Giants got my vote, plus the Cubs and Dodgers for having recently worn number-only jerseys despite having names this year.

    • Phillip | August 13, 2010 at 10:27 am |

      MLB Uniforms are really dull. Except for the pinstripes I don’t know if most fans would be able to tell for certain which uniform was their teams if you gave them all 4 options.

      • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 10:57 am |

        Nice analysis, J Dreyfuss. I agree with Phillip about the dullness. Except for a handful, there’s a lot that is uninspiring. With the Padres leading the dull parade. Good grief, there is absolutely no reason for them not to return to a brown/gold color scheme. They don’t have to be like the mustard clown costumes of the 70’s, just a traditional looking uni with UNIQUE COLORS THAT NO OTHER TEAM HAS.

        Gee, what a concept…


  • Geeman | August 13, 2010 at 9:08 am |

    So the Padres wore a road uniform and the Pirates wore what essentially was a home uniform (which they did not really wear that much in the 1970s anyway), in a game played in San Diego. Nice work, gentlemen. Sigh.

    • Chuck | August 13, 2010 at 11:19 pm |

      Alas the Pirates just do not get it!

  • Josh G. | August 13, 2010 at 9:16 am |

    This may have already been pointed out, but the Pirates pants are inaccurate. The striping down the sides should be gold-black-gold, not gold-white-gold.

  • Piping Mike | August 13, 2010 at 9:18 am |

    Holy treasure trove of old uniform stuff Batman! I stumbled across the following page this morning (after reading a business article on a paper company of all things).

    There’s a section titled ‘Sports Dress’ but there’s also tons of other stuff on the site. It would take days to go through everything.


    Ticker anyone?

  • Jordan Sogn | August 13, 2010 at 9:20 am |

    Aston Villa = Best color scheme in sports

    • Supernally Ugly | August 13, 2010 at 9:26 am |

      So much so that West Ham, Burnley, and a bunch of others have it over in the UK.

      Oddly enough, we don’t see it enough in the U.S.

      • Chris from Carver | August 13, 2010 at 9:41 am |

        Were the ’70s-’80s Phillies roads the closest that we’ve come?

        • Ryan | August 13, 2010 at 11:39 am |

          I think the Colorado Avalanche come close to that color scheme, though the blue isn’t quite light enough.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:44 am |

          Quebec Nordiques were kinda close, but their red wasn’t magenta enough.

      • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am |

        I was going to say that I like the powder and burgundy color scheme too. Red and blue is the most successful color scheme in sports, because it provides the best contrast without clashing or looking like holiday colors (green/red, black/orange) or flesh tones.

        The natural inclination is to make one color bright and one dark, but for some reason it’s always dark blue/bright red instead of bright blue/dark red.

        I think the Phillies were the only ones who tried it, but I wouldn’t make the red as dark as they did against the powder blue, more like the Cavs’ wine or Oklahoma’s crimson.

        • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

          Loyola Marymount used to have that color scheme, at least back in the Hank Gathers-Bo Kimble days….and I remember always thinking what an awesome combination that was.

          Surprising that none of the new expansion MLB, NFL or NBA use it. I know the phillies came close, bit the powder blue was not really a team color, but rather a “road grey” variety…

      • DJ | August 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

        West Ham “won” their first set of claret and blue uniforms as the result of a bet between the sprint champion father of a West Ham player and four Aston Villa players:


        They rotate the color of their change kit in a three-year rotation between Oxford Blue, Cambridge Blue, and white.

    • mike 2 | August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am |

      My wife bought me last years jersey for my birthday and now I want the new one (love that checkerboard!).

      The closest thing in North America is the Colorado Rapids.

      • Dan King | August 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

        The funny part is that the Rapids have agreements in place with Arsenal thanks to Stan Kroenke.

        • DJ | August 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

          The Rapids’ colors have nothing to do with Aston Villa, West Ham, etc. They are a combination of colors from Kroenke’s other Colorado-based sports teams — the burgundy of the Colorado Avalanche and the light blue of the Denver Nuggets.

  • Supernally Ugly | August 13, 2010 at 9:25 am |

    I was looking at the Pirates-Padres pictures.

    “We Are Family” came into my brain. I cannot get that song out of my head now. AAUGH!!

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:47 am |

      OK… I’ll help you out:

      You’re welcome.

      • Nick Spehar | August 13, 2010 at 11:34 pm |


  • Mykal94 | August 13, 2010 at 9:41 am |

    Today is the birthday of the McCourty twins, Devin (Patriots) and Jason (Titans). Not sure, but I think this the only set of active twins in the NFL.

    • Jim TN | August 13, 2010 at 1:42 pm |

      How many sets of twins have played in the NFL? Probably a pretty short list.

      Reggie and Raleigh McKenzie come to mind.

      • Ken | August 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

        Tiki & Ronde Barber

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 3:09 pm |

      Greg and Mike Pruitt. No? Ah, I tried.

  • marc | August 13, 2010 at 9:50 am |

    Boy, the Pirates looked like complete sh*t. Throwback or not, ownership should be embarrassed to have that on the field. The uniforms look sloppy and amateurish and don’t belong on a Major League Baseball diamond.

    • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 10:58 am |

      Yeah, it does look pretty awful.


      • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm |

        You could say that about the white and gray unis, too.

        Let’s just agree the pajama pants look is sloppy no matter what, and don’t let it detract from an otherwise enjoyable throwback game.

  • Danya | August 13, 2010 at 9:50 am |

    I will admit that the Yankees’ home uniforms are iconic, and I know I am in the minority here, but I absolutely will not admit it’s a good looking uniform. I think it’s blunt and aggressively ugly. The combination of extreme simplicity but also an in-your-face quality reminds me somewhat of certain fashions popular amongst skateboarders. I honestly don’t find them appealing at all.

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 10:01 am |

      I like the Yankees home uniform, but it’s not in my top ten. Iconic, yes, but that doesn’t always equal greatness. The players wearing the uniform is what made the uniform great. I much prefer the look of teams like the Cardinals, Royals (love that simple blue and white) or the Red Sox.

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 11:15 am |

        Being that I am a die-hard Yankee fan…I of course love the uni. However I like the “plainess” and simplicity of the road grey jersey. Like I have stated before, what makes the Yankee uni great, is not the style itself, but the fact that it has basically remained unchanged for so long. Which means that it’s the same uni worn by so many greats in the game.

        So I do agree that on it’s own, it isn’t very creative or inspiring, but that doesn’t make it any less iconic. I think it may probably be the most recognizable of all team sport uniforms.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:51 am |

          Yeah, I LOVE the Yanks’ away unis. Very understated, which is perfect for a visiting club. Similarly, I also loved the Bosox’s away unis in the 80s. They looked like a prison team.

    • Chance Michaels | August 13, 2010 at 10:18 am |

      Just out of curiosity, what do you find “in-your-face” about the Yankee home uniforms?

      • Danya | August 13, 2010 at 11:05 am |

        Their particular style of pinstripes. I like pinstripes on some teams, but the Yankees’ ones are particularly thick and bulky, creating the appearance of greater density relative to the white, which is what I mean when I say they strike me as in-your-face. Sorry for not clarifying previously.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am |

          That’s what annoys me about the Cubs’ pins. They seem too bulky. Maybe in actual measurement terms they’re not, but they are too loud for my liking.

          The epitome of “greater density relative to the white” is that crappy Pirates throwback shown today. A pinstripe with an outline? (Annoyed grunt)

  • marc | August 13, 2010 at 10:18 am |

    Re: soccer uniforms

    I really enjoyed the national uniforms worn during the World Cup, so despite the fact I’m not a fan, there are soccer uniforms that I like.

    That being said, I can’t imagine anyone getting excited over the billboards that are EPL jerseys. IMHO, they all look like something you’d get as a freebie at a corporate picnic. Many of them could look really nice without the bumper sticker across the chest. I understand corporate sponsorship is a necessity, but why bother even calling the teams anything other than the name of the sponsor? Even the worst MLB, NFL, NBA or NHL uniforms are light years ahead of these.

    Logo creep is already bad enough here… I pray it doesn’t get to EPL levels in my lifetime but, *sigh*, it likely will… and probably much sooner than we’d care to believe.

    • Mark in Shiga | August 13, 2010 at 10:39 am |

      Marc, I couldn’t agree more. That advertising is hideous; the sponsors’ names are bigger than the club names! I was also disappointed to see the names of these sponsors mentioned so prominently in the review. I know that in a discussion of uniforms, you can’t help but describe what’s on the uniform, but I would have preferred to see the author simply say “the sponsor’s name” or something like that rather than actually saying the names of these corporate entities. Just mention their existence while refusing to say the actual names, kind of like when a naked fan streaks across a field and the announcers mention it but the cameramen turn the camers away so as to not give the streaker the publicity.

    • Matt | August 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

      There’s something curious going on, that somebody with more time and knowledge should write about. When the Seattle Sounders were preparing to reveal their kit/jersey a couple of years ago, there was a lot of speculation about who the sponsor would be, and what that would look like on the shirt. What struck me is that there was a perceived prestige with some sponsors over others. Fans were generally relieved, if not ecstatic, that Microsoft was the sponsor — the thought was that “XBOX 360” would look cool on the jersey. Fast forward a year or so, and there was disappointment among San Jose Earthquakes fans when Amway bought the shirts instead of, say, Apple. But I think the feeling — at least among MLS fans — is that some sponsor (Herbalife, Xango) is better than no sponsor. There is even a team that is eponymous with its owner/sponsor, Red Bull. It somehow validates your team if somebody is willing to buy ad space. It’s like the converse of normal advertising — the team benefits from the association with the sponsor.

      Personally, I much prefer sponsor-less uniforms and can’t bring myself to pay $80 or more to wear somebody’s ad (I’m also in my 40s), but this argument is long over in world football/soccer. Is it also true in Europe that a team without a kit sponsor is seen as second-class? E.g., is West Bromwich Albion more respected now that it has a kit sponsor? If so, does anybody else think this is weird? I’d be interested in reading about how advertising took hold in football/soccer if anyone can point me to a link.

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm |

        I think if the sponsor is so prominent, then you might as well go with the MetroStars-Red Bull route….just name the team after the sponsor.

        The J-League in Japan does it that way…as do most other Asian Leagues…I would rather have that, than have a corporate logo be the main feature on a jersey.

        • DJ | August 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

          No, the J-League does not do it that way. Prior to the founding of the J-League, teams were, in fact, company teams (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, etc.). When the J-League started, the teams specifically named themselves after cities or prefectures (Tokyo FC, Nagoya Grampus, Urawa Red Diamonds, etc.)


      • Dan King | August 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

        In the case with West Brom it was more that sponsors didn’t want to sign a multi-year sponsorship deal (at Premier Leageu rates) with a team most people were saying were going to be relegated at the end of that season. So usually bigger (elite) teams get the big sponsorship deals as they get more free advertising (more jerseys sold, more tv exposure, etc).

        So I think its more your team is already good to get the sponsor, and when/if you do, it shows others that you’re a big team.

        Also, with Seattle and San Jose I think there’s a few reasons.
        1. Microsoft is based around their
        2. Who would you rather have if you had to- an international company that everyones heard of, or a company that most people haven’t heard of or know what they do.

        • Matt | August 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm |

          Agreed. But I think the best way to show others you’re a big team is to keep ads off your shirt. Or at least go the Barcelona route and gift the space to a charity. There’s just a different logic here. There’s no doubt the Yankees could command the highest price for an ad, from the most prestigious sponsor, on their jerseys, but they’d look cheaper and tackier than any team without a sponsor if they did so. What’s going on in soccer isn’t what I’d expect if I were dropped onto Earth from another planet, but it’s become natural. Perhaps it’s just that fans have bought into the notion that maximizing ad revenue by selling shirt space is essential to being competitive. But I doubt that translates directly into player payroll and it only widens the gap between big and small teams anyway — better to just keep the shirts clean.

          Anyway, my all-time favorite soccer jersey is the Getafe Burger King kit. Without eternal vigilance, this could happen here:


        • Dan King | August 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

          Matt, I think the main difference is the amount of money generated by ads. When watching a Yankees game, how many ads do you see around the park? A ton. Then add in some of the revenue from the commercials shown during the game, since the teams get some of that as well. Where as soccer leagues don’t get as much revenue from commercials, since they’re only shown before the game, halftime, and after the game.

          Barca is an exception (Aston Villa being the only other one I know of)when it comes to the ads on the jersey. But the other thing is they did just have to take out a $188 million loan to pay wages and other costs.

    • Komet17 | August 13, 2010 at 8:42 pm |

      If Major League Baseball teams began wearing ads anywhere approaching the prominence of the ads on the EPL jerseys, I’d quit watching baseball, I think.

  • Glenn | August 13, 2010 at 10:23 am |

    That poll might as well be “what is your favorite team?” as everyone is going to vote for their favorite team. This is already evidenced by the fact that the teams with the largest fanbases are leading the poll, even though their uniforms are awful. And the small market teams with great unis are near the last place. Another failed idea just to create controvery and generate ad clicks and impressions.

    • pflava | August 13, 2010 at 10:27 am |

      Kansas City and Pittsburgh are doing pretty well in the poll. My impression is that the teams with shitty uniforms are the ones not getting any votes.

      • Skycat | August 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

        To illustrate your point, look at the discrepancy in votes between the Dodgers and the Royals. Aside from the Dodgers’ red number in the front, the two uniforms are essentially the same.

    • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 11:00 am |

      Not necessarily. The Mets, Padres and Athletics have been my teams of interest over the years and NONE of them made it to my top ten in the poll!!!


      • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

        I love the Athletics’ unis. They’re not even in your top ten, Jet?

        And Glenn, when it comes to Uni Watchers, I’m thinking a lot of us choose our favorite teams BECAUSE of the unis. Now if you polled the general public with this same topic, then I’d agree more with you.

        The Cardinals and Tigers are among the leaders. Do you consider them awful, Glenn? If so, I shudder at the thought of your top ten list.

        • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

          The Athletic’s current home whites are probably my favorites right now…. unless you have an aversion to green, I can’t see how they wouldn’t make any top 5 list

        • Le Cracquere | August 13, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

          The apostrophe-s on the Athletics’ cap makes me shudder, and always has. It’s not the worst uniform element ever, but I’ve always thought it the most egregious, the most unnecessarily destructive to an otherwise magnificent look. With an “A,” the Oakland uniform tops my list. With an “A’s,” it doesn’t break the top twenty.

          Maybe if the franchise moves, they can make a fresh start with that awful cartoon fillip’s removal.

        • Geeman | August 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

          I too love the A’s uniforms, though I also loved their predecessors, which had the green-and-gold stripes. When they add the gold jerseys next year, I hope they keep the same current design, though it would be okay if they put “A’s” on them as a shout-out to the ’70s teams.

    • besty | August 13, 2010 at 11:04 am |

      Not necessarily true. the Twins are my favorite team but I don’t like pinstripes and thus didn’t vote for them. I think almost all teams who wear pinstripes would look better with exactly the same uniforms without the pinstripes.

      • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:23 am |

        I’d agree with that! I mention below that I don’t care for the Cubs’ home unis, but they’d be in the top five without the pins.

        • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

          The pins aren’t the problem. It’s the unnecessarily clunky logo on the front that’s the problem. And registered ® sign doesn’t help matters any, either.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

          The logo doesn’t bug me (well… the circle R does), it’s definitely the pins. They make the Cubs look like a softball team.

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:21 am |

      I dunno… I DESPISE the BoSox, but I voted for ’em because their unis are damn handsome. I like the Cubs, but have never cared for their home uniform.

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 11:27 am |

        I have stated many times my utter disdain and hatred for anything Boston ( sports wise ). But I really love Boston’s home whites…..and would put them in the top 4..

        • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:40 am |


    • M.Princip | August 13, 2010 at 11:52 am |

      I don’t have a favorite team, since I don’t really follow baseball. Strictly going by aesthetics and what appeals to me. I will say this, the clear winners in this poll are the C.Reds for the classic, and the DBacks for the modern. The Diamondbacks wordmark/font is killer.

      • M.Princip | August 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

        The Orioles home unis are pretty badass as well.

      • marc | August 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

        Hey Mike… enjoyed the helmet article/designs last week (?), btw.

        • M.Princip | August 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

          Thanks Marc, stay tuned, some interesting stuff around the corner regarding that.

  • Skott | August 13, 2010 at 10:35 am |

    It’s been two weeks since the deadline for the “design a jersey contest.” Why aren’t we voting for that instead? Also, a NASCAR/racing article, AND soccer in the same week? Ouch. No wonder Paul left for the month. We are in Uni Purgatory. I guess no news ISN’T good news.
    Very well written article, I just don’t have the slightest interest in either sport, or their unis. They could drive in circles, or run around not scoring goals naked for all I care.

    • Teebz | August 13, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

      “run around not scoring goals naked”?

      Brandi Chastain did that… although she did score. LOL

  • spadilly | August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am |

    glad to see the tigers home jersey getting so much love.

    (and this is coming from a lifelong astros fan)

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:42 am |

      Agreed. I’m a lifelong Indians fan and am therefore contractually obligated to hate the Tigers, but it is the best home uni in the Bigs.

  • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 11:04 am |

    Looking at the uniforms for the baseball poll, I was reminded of why I like the Phillies and Dodgers so much. Both have one item on the front of their shirt that is a contrast to the dominant color on the entire rest of their uniform.

    For the Dodgers, it’s the red numbers on the lower right of the shirt. For the Phillies, its the blue star to dot the “i”.

    Think of how much less attractive both of these unis would be if the Dodgers had blue numbers and the Phillies had a red star…


  • Casey Hart | August 13, 2010 at 11:15 am |

    If you’ll allow me to rant for a second, there is no such thing as the “EPL.” The Premier League is English, but the name of the league is not “English Premier League” (though that term is completely fine to use). “English” is a descriptor of the proper noun “Premier League,” but it’s not the official name (actually the super-sellout “Barclay’s Premier League”). “PL” and “BPL” (Barclay’s Premier League) are the proper abbreviations. Everyone can now proceed to dump on me for caring about this sort of thing if they want, but hopefully if anybody cares about getting the details right, it’s Uni Watchers.

    Regarding the content, I haven’t had a chance to read up and check out all the unis, but I’m very psyched that my boys Everton have ditched last year’s white bib (a botched attempt at a throwback) at home (even though I loved the white crewneck collar with blue stripes). The downside is that the new second kit is a huge downgrade over what was possibly the best use of pink in the history of uniforms last year.

    Also, my LFC-supporting buddy reports that the new Liverpool sponsor mark doesn’t look nearly as drab in action as it does in a static picture.

    And I love City’s kits, natch. Haven’t really checked out many others.

    • Stevie McQuistan | August 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

      True points – a lot of American journalists do use “EPL”, as if they need to differentiate the league from other “premier leagues” (of which, there are of course, none).

      It is strange when you think about it, since they use Bundesliga, Serie A, and La Liga and never go out of the way to specify the country.

      Of course, the Premier League is going to implode in bankruptcy in the next few years so perhaps this problem will take care of itself.

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

      Don’t worry about being OCD about the name or abbreviation. If it wasn’t for that sort of thing, none of us would be here.

  • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 11:22 am |

    Maybe some of you color experts can shed some light on this…or maybe it’s just my imagination.

    I have always thought that some team’s home whites and brighter or “whiter” that others. Maybe its the material, the lighting or an effect cased by the accent colors.

    I was reminded last night watching the Yanks-Royals game, that the Royals home unis have always seemed brigther to me. I will add the Dodger to this list. Maybe its the royal blue on white that creates this effect? Not sure, maybe its just me.

    It’s no coincidence I guess that those happen to be some of my favorite home unis ( along with the A’s and as much as I hate to say it, the Red Sox ). The seem so crisp and clean at home that they should never kill that look wearing a solid color at home.

    In any case, I know some of you guys in here are color experts, so is there such a thing as a brighter shade of white?

    • The Jeff | August 13, 2010 at 11:44 am |

      Well it’s definitely possible to have different shades of “white” depending on the materials involved.

      I can’t answer if that’s what’s actually happening or if it’s just in your head though.

    • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

      The Dodgers have always struck me as having the whitest whites in baseball (I actually had a conversation with a coworker about this many years ago) but I never really got the same impression from the similarly-dressed Royals. I’ve pretty much chalked it up to something about the lighting (both day and night) in Dodger Stadium.

      Or maybe it’s got something to do with the red numbers.

      • Geeman | August 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

        No, I think you’re right. My dad has noted that for years and it’s only now that I’m picking up on it. A great uniform.

  • elliott | August 13, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    I’ve never even heard of the term EPL by the way. I don’t think anyone uses it this side of the pond.

    I know you guys live in the land of the acronym but it sounds a bit ridiculous.

    It’s just the Premier League here.

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 11:30 am |

      “… land of the acronym.” LOL!

      Acronym-ization drives me nuts. Just like when people hyphenate to make up new words like I just di… oops.

      • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

        Gotta go into nitpick mode here. Unless you’re pronouncing it as a word (pronounced like epple?), EPL is an initialism, but it’s not an acronym.

        SCUBA, NASA, MASH, etc. are acronyms.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm |

          Merriam Webster says:

          Acronym: a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : initialism

          Huzzah! Everybody wins!

        • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 12:27 pm |

          George & Charles Merriam and Noah Webster: you’re officially on notice.

        • timmy b | August 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

          After all, we are from the USA.

    • RS Rogers | August 13, 2010 at 12:38 pm |

      I think when you complain about acronym use by people who refer to their country by its initials, you’ve already lost the argument. We can’t even think of a sports chant more sophisticated than repeating “U S A” over and over. Heck, the song “God Bless America” was so far over our heads, we had to write a new song called “God Bless the USA” just so we could follow along.

      Anyway, in Britain it may be the Premier League, but from the outside, it’s the English Premier League, because if you didn’t add the adjective “English,” nobody would know what you were talking about. (There are other Premier Leagues, after all.) And once you admit the adjective, then it becomes the EPL, because that’s just what Americans do.

      • Casey Hart | August 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm |

        Classic example of all of this.’s headline people use “EPL” all over the place (on the story and on the front of, and the writer (presumably English with a name like “Georgina” and use of the word “sack” as a verb) never uses it once.

        (Pardon me if I messed up the linking.)

  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    Mark Emge said:
    “I fell in love with the EPL eight years ago after the 2002 World Cup and have slowly started to embrace everything English. Strangely enough I’ve even started to appreciate British humor.”

    Same here! Well, the first part sounds like me. I’ve been a fan of British humor, though, since the 80s. Loved Blackadder, especially.

    Hoping to get to a farmers market this weekend to get some British meat pies. Mmmmmmm…

    As for the unis, Arsenal, Aston Villa’s home, Liverpool, Manchester City’s third, Tottenham, West Brom and Wigan are my favorites…but I wouldn’t wear any of them. The sponsors just ruin all of those great designs.

    Actually, I might wear City’s third. The sponsor logo is smaller, and although I’d rather do without them altogether, that’s manageable. I suppose I could wear a Tottneham home jersey. I would wear an old Carlsberg Liverpool jersey, but that Standard Chartered logo is too corporate and boring.

    West Brom is my favorite team, but I don’t care if they needed me to buy a jersey to keep the team afloat – that’s one gaudy awful sponsor logo. I understand it needing to be visible, but that one’s just overpowering.

  • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 11:48 am |

    jdreyfuss said:

    Obviously not every team should be using striped or other alternative stirrups. It would look terrible against the teams that wear pinstripes, for example.

    Uh, yeah…I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am |

      We’ll have to agree to disagree then. To me, it’s the same as wearing stripes with plaid. Having them be at right angles to each other creates a jarring effect that’s tiring on the eye.

      • JTH | August 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

        It’s possible to pull off stripes and plaid if you know what you’re doing. That’s one of those arbitrary rules (like never ending a sentence with a preposition) that has gone unchallenged for years despite there being nothing intrinsically wrong with doing it.

        • marc | August 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

          Indeed. Wearing white after Labor Day and such.

          It’s also possible to pull off plaid and a Brooklyn Dodger hat.

        • RS Rogers | August 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

          In fact, plaid was originally most often worn with other patterns of plaid.

          The trick is not that you can’t wear stripes with other stripes, or even horizontal with vertical stripes. You can. The trick is to make sure your patterns, whether striped, plaid, whatever, offer contrast from one another. So with pinstriped unis, you’d want relatively wide sock stripes. Or if your pinstripes are darn on light, then thin sock stripes will work if they’re light on dark. And so forth.

          But the bottom line is that it’s a shame that only pinstripes survived baseball’s early flirtation with patterned fabric. Back in the day, teams wore plaids as well as tatersalls in addition to pins.

    • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

      Always thought this, too, was one of the rare occasions it actually worked (never say never)…


  • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    ….And why do the Texas Rangers have “TEXAS” on their home unis???


    • The Jeff | August 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

      Because they can.

      Why do they get to be called Texas when they’re not the only team in the state?

      • marc | August 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

        Yeah! And while we’re at it, why do the Mets and Yankees get to be called “New York” when both are in the same city?

        Oh… right… never mind.

      • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

        Maybe they’re ashamed of being in Dallas?

        • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:39 pm |

          Likely didn’t want to appear to slight Fort Worth.
          And “Dallas-Fort Worth” is a mouthful…much like “Minneapolis-St. Paul”.
          And “Texas Rangers” sorta makes the whole thing the nickname.
          Like Buffalo Bills.

          Now, if they were naming themselves today, they could even be the…
          “Metroplex” Rangers, huh.

          Not much differently, conceptually, than Golden State or Quad Cities and such.


      • Jim TN | August 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

        Could be worse…they could be the Dallas Rangers of Arlington.

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

      Yeah! They should have this instead.

      • Jet | August 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm |

        Everyone missed my point (I think)…

        the point was why don’t their home shirts say “RANGERS” instead of “TEXAS?” Shouldn’t the city name be on the road shirts?


        • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

          Did get a bit sidetracked, didn’t we.
          And that’s a good question.
          Used to have “Rangers”, of course, first in script and recently in the current font.

          Maybe it’s a marketing move. Given the Astros’ slide and their winning, they may be trying to become “Texas’ Team”.

          I’m serious.


        • Geeman | August 13, 2010 at 2:43 pm |

          I like it. For years many teams had their nickname on their home and road uniforms, so why not do this? It makes all four jerseys consistent. Plus, the Yankees have the abbreviation of their city name on their home uniforms, not their nickname.

      • marc | August 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm |

        Didn’t miss the point. Sorry.. it’s been adressed so many times here (referring to the team as the Texas Texases, for instance) that I was kinda running with it.

  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm |

    Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 11:22 am | Reply
    “In any case, I know some of you guys in here are color experts, so is there such a thing as a brighter shade of white?”

    Is that anything like a whiter shade of pale?

    • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm |

      Only if accompanied by vestial virgins leaving for the coast.


      • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

        better make that “vestigial”

      • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm |


        please don’t screw up procol harem’s one good song…

        sixteen VESTAL virgins

        /carry on

        • NickV | August 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

          “Conquistador” is actually a pretty good sng – I could argue that it is their ONE GOOD SONG!

        • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 5:34 pm |


  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm |

    Trying this again…

    Mark Emge said:
    “I fell in love with the EPL eight years ago after the 2002 World Cup and have slowly started to embrace everything English. Strangely enough I’ve even started to appreciate British humor.”

    Same here! Well, the first part sounds like me. I’ve been a fan of British humor, though, since the 80s. Loved Blackadder, especially.

    Hoping to get to a farmers market this weekend to get some British meat pies. Mmmmmmm…

    As for the unis, Arsenal, Aston Villa’s home, Liverpool, Manchester City’s third, Tottenham, West Brom and Wigan are my favorites…but I wouldn’t wear any of them. The sponsors just ruin all of those great designs.

    Actually, I might wear City’s third. The sponsor logo is smaller, and although I’d rather do without them altogether, that’s manageable. I suppose I could wear a Tottneham home jersey. I would wear an old Carlsberg Liverpool jersey, but that Standard Chartered logo is too corporate and boring.

    West Brom is my favorite team, but I don’t care if they needed me to buy a jersey to keep the team afloat – that’s one gaudy awful sponsor logo. I understand it needing to be visible, but that one’s just overpowering.

  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

    My Top Ten:


    • RS Rogers | August 13, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

      My Top Ten, with parens indicating whether I like or hate the team so that people can judge how much my taste is influenced by liking the team:

      Dodgers (meh)
      Braves (hate)
      Cardinals (like)
      Giants (meh)
      Cubs (like)
      Orioles (hate)
      White Sox (hate)
      Rockies (like)
      Brewers (like)
      Reds (meh)

      Though honestly, after the White Sox, there are at least 6 teams that could fill out those spots for me, first among them the striped-sox Rays, followed by the Red Sox. The Brewers in particular are probably there because I like the team. And I’m probably only ranking the Cards higher than the Giants because I like the Cardinals and don’t much care about the Giants. If I liked the giants, I’d probably rank them second. The Twins and Nats, my two favorite teams, don’t crack my uni Top Ten (and in fact I rank the Nats as the ugliest team in baseball at the moment).

      • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 6:28 pm |

        Guess I coulda done that with my list, so here it is again:

        Orioles (like)
        Cubs (meh)
        Tigers (kinda like)
        Royals (like)
        Dodgers (meh)
        Yankees (kinda like)
        Athletics (like)
        Pirates (love)
        Mariners (like)
        Cardinals (like)

        BUT, in my defense, the uniform is one of my top reasons for liking/disliking a team. I have a few teams that I like regardless of looks; but for others, if you switch to a bad uni, I drop you like a .

        I don’t like the Red Sox, White Sox or Braves, but those unis are probably # 11, 12 and 13 on my list. That’s higher than my 2nd favorite team, the Nats. But if they lose the beveled font, they could easily shoot up into my top 5.

        • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 6:32 pm |

          “…if you switch to a bad uni, I drop you like a…”

          Forgot to add “hot potato.” Guess I dropped that sentence…

    • RS Rogers | August 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm |

      I’m curious about correlation between “favorite uniform” and “favorite team.” So here’s my own Top Ten list with my feelings about each team in parens.

      Dodgers (meh)
      Braves (hate)
      Cardinals (like)
      Giants (meh)
      Cubs (like)
      Orioles (hate)
      White Sox (hate)
      Rockies (like)
      Reds (meh)
      Brewers (like)

      I can see a few spots where how much I like the team probably affects how much I like the unis; once we’re a few more years removed from Barry Bonds, the Giants will probably crack my top three. And after the White Sox, there are about six teams that could round out my last three spots, but I like the teams listed just a bit more than, say, the Red Sox or the striped-socks Rays.

      My favorite teams are the Twins, whose home unis make my Top Fifteen, and the Nats, whose home unis I actually like a lot but who are, overall, the second-ugliest team in baseball.

  • Rich | August 13, 2010 at 1:12 pm |

    Looks like Andre Benjamin/3000 got his plaid fashion sense from the PTMM-era Replacements outfits! It would be the perfect outfit if he were sporting a Twins hat! Somewhere, Slim Dunlap is smiling…

  • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm |

    It’s Friday….

    the “All-Unfortunate Typo” Team…
    (and let’s don’t go to Frank or Fred Funk, too easy)

    I’ll start.

    Brain Cashman
    Wally Pimp
    Evan Longloria
    LeBorin James
    Mick Schidt


    • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

      Jay Johnstoned

      • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

        Leon Stinks

    • Jim TN | August 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

      Dick Trickle

      Brian Schlitter

      Kosuke Fukudome

      If Harry Caray had lived to broadcast a game with Fukudome, the WGN guys would have had to keep a finger on the bleep button at all times.

    • Jim TN | August 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

      Houston Nuts

      Nick Satan

      Steve Superior

      Toker Phillips

      • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm |

        Charlie Wuss

        Ted Turder

        Denard Spam

        (and, the obvious, so let’s get it over with…)
        Alex Roidriguez

    • Mike Engle | August 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

      I’d just assume Eva Longoria. A typo that isn’t, except, in that instance, it is.
      Tiger Wood
      Dan Dickau (no typo required, that’s just an unfortunate name)
      …now stop me before my sophomoric sensibilities get in the way.

      • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 2:42 pm |

        A misplaced “s” would give us Tigers Wood.
        That’s “s”, as in sophomoric.
        (he said, pleading guilty)


        • Mike Engle | August 13, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

          Tiger’s wood was featured in a Nike commercial years ago. The “Ignite” driver, I think it was. (Okray? Help please?) Such an oversized head, the talking club cover complained of stretch marks.
          Write your own joke here.

  • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    Shoulda been Steve Stoned.

  • Chad | August 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm |

    New unis for Penn State basketball. Kinda liked the previous ones better.

  • John | August 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    A few days back someone mentioned that Wisconsin may have worn black uniforms. I am not aware of this but they did wear a black helmet in early 70’s. They also had some bad Dallas Cowboy Apex One knockoffs in the mid 90’s for a game against Colorado. Photos linked.

    This was a disturbing era in big ten uniforms. Please see Minnesota, Indiana, and Iowa.

    • Dave Mac | August 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

      Great pictures, John. wow I forgot about a lot of those 90s Big Ten football uniforms. Maybe delving into this subject would be appropriate for a future Uni Watch column, Phil (or Paul). I mean, judging by those pictures we have a lot of material. And I’m sure there’s a lot of Big Ten football uni-related materials for every decade as well.

      • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

        Those Iowa unis are horrible..

    • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 2:32 pm |

      Wisconsin black helmet wasn’t a team-wide thing.

      Was awarded to a player who had, the previous week, I believe, played especially tough.
      Called the “Savage” or something.

      Badger DB Melvin Walker, wearing the black helmet, severely injured a leg in a season finale Minnesota, so severe it resulted in amputation. There was some talk that the helmet might have made him a target and, as I recall, the black helmet business didn’t last long after that.


    • Jordan Sogn | August 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm |

      Let’s not forget about the Hogs’ unis they wore to commemorate 100 years of football…

  • Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm |

    Since we have been discussing the merits or not of having sponsor ads / logos on the Premier League and other soccer / football institutions…how about looking at it from another angle all together…

    With the exclusion of a handful of teams ( Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Angels etc ) a lot of the small market teams claim that they can not compete with the Big $$ teams.

    Let’s say if a sponsor pumps big money into a team and we assume it is somewhat of a locally sponsored team, like lets say it’s Sprint. They can give you enough money to compete. They have a clause saying that the money must be spent on players and not pocketed by the owners…but….

    But the team must now be called the Sprint Royals. Color scheme changed to black and yellow ( Sprint Nextel’s corporate colors ).

    How would you feel about that?

    Target Twins

    Sprint Royals

    Coca Cola Braves

    Boeing Mariners

    Google Athletics

    Coors Rockies


    • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm |

      or…the big market teams could stop paying middle relievers 6M per…

      and there is no reason on god’s green earth why ANY player needs to make 20 million a season

      if you simply REDUCE player salaries to a SOMEWHAT reasonable level…the “poorer” teams could compete just fine

      when one player makes as much as almost an entire roster…not so much

      • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 6:17 pm |

        Why, that just makes too much sense.

        Don’t wanna hear those who say, “Well, these guys are one hit away from a career-ending injury.” Bill Simmons said something like that in today’s column. Guess what? We all are. Just ask anyone who drives to and from work.

        Players are as out of touch these days as the owners. Now the older players who made squat and can’t walk or think straight now? By all means, throw some more dough their way. But a multi-millionaire holding out for more because he doesn’t feel respected? Fool, get out there and play.

        I’m not opposed to the concept of ads on jerseys to help smaller teams, but I AM opposed to the actual practice. Conceptually, you find a decent sponsor with a cool logo that doesn’t distract much from the team’s uni. In reality, you get a goofy (to put it kindly) sponsor with a gaudy awful logo that dwarfs the team’s logo.

        Take my favorite EPL team, West Brom. I don’t care if they needed me to buy a jersey to keep the team from going under; I would not wear (or buy) this:

        Now Manchester City’s third, on the other hand, I’d wear…MAYBE even buy:
        Great uni, visible but not overpowering sponsor logo, and it’s below the team logo. But that’s the exception to the rule.

        • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

          Ah, I see my previous two attempts at a similar post have been freed from “moderation,” so sorry for the multiple comments on West Brom and Man City.

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 8:08 pm |

      Wouldn’t it be the Molson Rockies now that no one in the US owns a macrobrewery anymore?

    • teenchy | August 14, 2010 at 10:36 am |

      Office of Management and Budget Nationals?

  • Kyle | August 13, 2010 at 2:50 pm |

    was going through some pictures on a friends facebook and came across this one. the guy was in a minor league organization in mexico, and i’m sure everyone will have a good gag when they see the photo, but at the same time enjoy and appreciate part of the comment from another friend.

  • John | August 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm |

    Very cool uni-redesign concepts here!

  • John | August 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

    There should be a future blog on the apex one era!
    I think the Cowboys led the charge… but man there were some awful designs. Not to mention the sideline wear.. hats, golf shirts, jackets, and warm ups. I think they introduced us to the dazzle material we now see in today’s NBA uniforms. God I hate the glimmer and the texture! I know the old sand-knit unis aren’t exactly a performance fabric but they look so much sharper.

  • daddyfisk | August 13, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

    Li Phil- thank you so much for the great tri-color hat mock ups you did yesterday. I don’t have the ability to do that and was wondering if you could do the same for the red, blue alts as well as a tri-color with red-grey-blue for the away. Perhaps they could get submitted in the tweaks and maybe (the baseball gods wiling) make it all the way to DC and finally get rid of those awful unis they sport now.

  • rpm | August 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

    i don’t like the black pants, but i loooooove the pirate pins, even if they are not perfect. but i digress…

    consider this my prime time press conference on the ocho… as of 1:09 CT today kansas city(the art institute specifically) has decided to trade for chicago’s star painter, “pineapple” perryman for a run at the art world series. in addition, KCAI found a sack of wet mice in their basement, and insisted on including them in the deal, so chicago threw in me to make all things even.
    so there you have it, it is official, so long sweet home chicago and kansas city here i come,go royals!

    • Gusto44 | August 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

      Good to see someone else who likes the Pirates gold pins, I wish the club would start using that style again, only sleeveless, replacing the black pinstripe uniform they currently wear for Sunday games. Obviously, this would be minus the pillbox hat.

      Don’t know why we haven’t seen the Pirates throwback to their black jersey/gold pants combo yet. I’m not sure much thought has gone into he entire design and strategy of MLB throwbacks in general.

      • rpm | August 13, 2010 at 3:58 pm |

        that style of pins can only work for the pirates colour scheme too, they should totally own it. but neigh on the coloured pants, just go all pins. if it is a sunday look, keep the pill in either colour, but if they were to adopt it every day, yes, black hat.

    • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

      Good luck, Mr. Marshall! Hey, if you see a nice cotton twill adjustable Royals hat at a decent price, lemme know. Enjoy the barbecue, too.

    • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm |

      congrats buddy!

      apologies to wilbert harrison…

      well you might take a train
      you might take a plane…
      but if you have to walk
      you’re gonna get there just the same>

      they got some crazy women there…but pineapple’s the only one

  • Phobos | August 13, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

    Comedian Josh Sneed posted this link on Facebook today…thought everyone would have a field day with these (apologizes if this has already been posted by anyone else)…I give you the 30 Worst Baseball Cards

    Have at it boys!!!

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 8:21 pm |

      My favorite has to be the Tom Henke one. I can hear him saying, “Dahuey…”

  • =bg= | August 13, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    Not seeing any love for the classic timeless design of your San Francisco Giants. Light creme with black/orange/gold.


    On another note-
    why aren’t there home and road helmets for the NFL?
    I see an entire new revenue stream for the league.

    • marc | August 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm |

      LOVE the Giants home look. Very nice… plus the colors are that of my alma mater (high school).

      Re: home and away helmets

      I dunno… they change helmets with the throwbacks, so why not?

      • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 5:33 pm |

        Because they sell so many helmets?

        Oh, okay, maybe the minihelmets.


        • =bg= | August 13, 2010 at 9:43 pm |

          If ya got two helmets, ya got two logos to sell. I can see ’em doing it. Why not?

    • Gusto44 | August 13, 2010 at 5:37 pm |

      Don’t know if they still do it, but I seem to remember hearing Washington State having home and away football helmets when they were competitive. One version was silver, the other red.

  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm |

    Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
    “Did get a bit sidetracked, didn’t we.
    And that’s a good question.
    Used to have “Rangers”, of course, first in script and recently in the current font.
    Maybe it’s a marketing move. Given the Astros’ slide and their winning, they may be trying to become “Texas’ Team”.
    I’m serious.”

    Forgot to add, “Used to have ‘Senators,’ of course.” ;)

  • | August 13, 2010 at 5:46 pm |

    A few interesting auction topics I found while going thorough some of my backed up bidding lots. The first one, the baseball ticket, I actually lost out on. It was up to $325 with an estimated value of $300.

    Extremely old Minor League Baseball Ticket


    The original blueprints for Yankee Stadium


    I’ve seen this picture a million times, but wow, look at how those three pull of those stirrups!!


  • Jim Vilk | August 13, 2010 at 6:37 pm |

    jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 11:34 am | Reply
    “I was going to say that I like the powder and burgundy color scheme too. Red and blue is the most successful color scheme in sports, because it provides the best contrast without clashing or looking like holiday colors (green/red, black/orange) or flesh tones.
    The natural inclination is to make one color bright and one dark, but for some reason it’s always dark blue/bright red instead of bright blue/dark red.
    I think the Phillies were the only ones who tried it, but I wouldn’t make the red as dark as they did against the powder blue, more like the Cavs’ wine or Oklahoma’s crimson.”

    Ricardo Leonor | August 13, 2010 at 12:35 pm |
    “Loyola Marymount used to have that color scheme, at least back in the Hank Gathers-Bo Kimble days….and I remember always thinking what an awesome combination that was.
    Surprising that none of the new expansion MLB, NFL or NBA use it. I know the phillies came close, bit the powder blue was not really a team color, but rather a “road grey” variety…”

    Loved the old Loyola Marymount unis. Loved the Michigan Panthers as well. Someone in the above-mentioned leagues needs to adopt that color scheme.

    • Gusto44 | August 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm |

      Agreed, it’s that type of thinking we need in sports uniform design, instead the automatic switching to black or red. I liked that old Phillies color combination, even the font was more unique. Also, someday, the city name should adorn the front of a road Phillies jersey.

  • mtjaws | August 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm |

    The Orioles and Rays are wearing throwbacks tonight in St. Pete. The Orioles are in their very bright monochrome orange! And the Rays are in a white home uniform of the Tampa Tarpons. I think both look great! The Rays do have matching red helmets, and Baltimore has an black helmet with orange brim and retro bird. Some guys are in stirrups, but Showalter has his usual windbreaker over the orange jersey. (Cuz you know that is needed in a dome.)

    • Brian | August 13, 2010 at 8:17 pm |

      Black is slimming.

    • jdreyfuss | August 13, 2010 at 8:27 pm |

      Am I the only one who’d like to see these teams that entered the Majors in the 1993 and 1998 expansions do fauxbacks instead of throwing back to minor league teams? I think seeing what an artist thinks the Diamondbacks or the Rockies would have looked like in the 1940s or ’50s would be interesting.

    • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 8:31 pm |

      dammit…not getting this game

      well…if ek doesn’t cover it this weekend, i’ll get in a bit on it on monday

  • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm |


    it’s either the worst or the best thing ever

    • traxel | August 13, 2010 at 9:40 pm |

      Best. Forget the rest.

    • rpm | August 14, 2010 at 1:16 am |

      sorry, it was second friday tonight…best thing ever!

  • Garrett | August 13, 2010 at 8:43 pm |

    Found a different version of the tequila sunrise.

  • LI Phil | August 13, 2010 at 9:01 pm |

    hey…vilk was at the oriole game

    just wow …ice cream men vs convicts

    • traxel | August 13, 2010 at 9:43 pm |

      Historical correctness and baggy style aside, Beautimus. Absolute Gorgeousness.

    • traxel | August 13, 2010 at 9:50 pm |

      oh, and the Pad/Pirates game was fantastic eye candy as well (with the above disclaimer also attached). The wide pins and either the black or gold pants are the best bumblebee combo. I think I like the gold hats the best.

      Are the Pirates the only pinstriped team to go with multicolored stripes? Not the one color single wythe of Cubs/Yanks/everyone else pins but a wider black/yellow/black (or vice versa) pinstripe. I like it. Busier, funner (yeah I said funner), brighter…

      • Gusto44 | August 13, 2010 at 10:02 pm |

        It would be intriguing to see how many other baseball teams ever used gold pinstripes. I have a tough time believing the 1977 Pirates were the first. My guess is some college or minor league team earlier in the 70s originated gold pinstripes. Of course, the ability to manufacture multicolor pins limits the time frame we’re talking about.

        • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 11:11 pm |

          Pretty sure Pirates only team in MLB to use gold pins.
          Might also be only one with “tri-stripe” pins.
          Might someone between 1900 and 1920 or so…or in the Negro Leagues, but without checking Okkonen, I can’t think of any.

          btw, for the baseball purists, Twins executed a perfect suicide squeeze tonight for what turned out to be the winning run in a 4-3 win. Drew Butera on third, Danny Valencia at bat.


    • Ricko | August 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm |

      Cue “Orange Blossom Special”

      Fun game. Fun unis.

      And, yes, the newer teams would do better when the honor minor league teams from their area.

      For example, would love to see Rockies as the Denver Bears or, later, the Denver Zephyrs. Or the Rangers as the Dallas Eagles, for that matter.

      D-backs might have touble with the Phoenix Firebirds, though. Weren’t the Firebirds’ owners the group that got outbid for the Phoenix MLB franchise…or something like that?


    • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 12:17 am |

      Nah, if that was me, I’d be wearing shorts…

      Dig those O’s unis! You bet I’d wear that.

  • Komet17 | August 13, 2010 at 9:21 pm |

    Well, it’s not based on the MOST recent Fortune 500 list, but this seems pretty accurate–what MLB teams would be named if sponsored by the largest corporation in/near their current cities:

    IBM Yankees
    Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Red Sox
    Royal Bank of Canada Blue Jays
    Lockheed Martin Orioles
    Tech Data Corp. Rays

    Sears White Sox
    Target Twins
    Farmland Industries Royals
    General Motors Tigers
    Parker-Hannifin Corp. Indians

    Microsoft Mariners
    Chevron-Texaco Athletics
    Ingram Micro Angels
    AMR Corp. Rangers

    Citigroup Mets
    Chesterbrook Phillies
    Fannie Mae Nationals
    Home Depot Braves
    AutoNation Marlins

    Boeing Cubs
    Johnson Controls Brewers
    Anheuser-Busch Cardinals
    Kroger Reds
    Alcoa Pirates
    Exxon-Mobil Astros

    Hewlett-Packard Giants
    Northrop Grumman Dodgers
    Sempra Energy Padres
    Qwest Communications Rockies
    Avnet Diamondbacks

  • =bg= | August 13, 2010 at 10:18 pm |

    OK, Giants hosting the Padres. Orange vs. Blue.

    And on another note;

    The new Giants/Jets place is…………..gray. All of it.

    • traxel | August 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm |

      This place kind of bugs me. Part of it is my absolute disdain of feeling like I’m being programmed to buy something. Video boards everywhere are what will bring the color and homeyness (and ads, commercials, billboards, spend, buy, gimme….) to the fans – so says Mark Lamping. Welcome to NY I guess. The gray color reminds me of eastern block nations of the fifties-seventies. Aaah. Home sweet institutional home. AND then it’s not just your home either. You get to share it with your brother, the Jets. Let’s face it, this doesn’t feel like it’s the Jets home crib. The Jets are a grass, mud, infield skin team. Green unis on green astroturf never looked right. The Jets are a team that you need to find a parking spot down some dark alley next to a dumpster between highrises to go see. It’s Broadway Joe, not Suburban Parking Lot Joe. The Jets moved after the Giants and into (the) Giant(‘)s Stadium. This place is just a larger more corporate distancing of the fan from the game of professional football. The fans will still watch, it’s the NFL. But are they (we) watching anything more than conglomerates facing conglomerates? The human relationship is gone with this place. And it’s not coming back.

      • rpm | August 14, 2010 at 2:51 am |


  • =bg= | August 13, 2010 at 10:31 pm |

    Are there ANY new NFL unis this season? I haven’t heard of anything new.

    • traxel | August 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm |

      Chiefs looking good with their striped socks, pants striping matching jersey striping. Don’t remember if they wore red or white pants last year with the whites.


      • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 12:23 am |

        I like the red better. Either way, though, that’s one underrated uni.

    • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 12:26 am |

      Sadly, no new unis in Buffalo…

  • Jonee | August 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

    L.A. Clippers new home unis. Not bad, but they unnecessarily busied up a nice, simple uniform.

    • =bg= | August 14, 2010 at 12:05 am |

      still has that AWFUL hand-drawn logo.
      Uni FAIL.

  • Chuck | August 13, 2010 at 11:27 pm |

    If the Cleveland Indians would get rid of the piping on their home and road unis, they would look great. They should also dump the blue tops.

  • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 12:35 am |

    A possible NFL lockout…another one in the NBA…and now something even worse: Could the Hamilton Tiger-Cats be moving after the 2011 season?

    I just want them to fix the unis, not pack up and leave…

  • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 12:58 am |

    Speaking of the Ti-Cats, owner Bob Young is another example for Paul’s “Baseball Caps Are Just About Everywhere” article.

    He even wore a yellow Ti-Cats hat on his interview with TSN Friday night.

    • Gusto44 | August 14, 2010 at 1:02 am |

      Sounds like the Ti-Cats could become the London Rifles, or the Quebec City Nordiques.

      • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 1:10 am |

        Moncton, New Brunswick is probably a contender, as is Halifax. The league has been trying to expand to the Atlantic coast, so this might be an opportunity. If it’s Halifax I hope they call them the Tugboats, after my favorite resident:

  • Jim Vilk | August 14, 2010 at 1:19 am |

    OK, one more CFL thing.

    At least they appreciate the men who put the foot in football – punter Bob Cameron is one of this year’s inductees in the CFL Hall of Fame:

    The Bombers wore the home blue version of those old beauties this week when they hosted Hamilton.

  • Morty | August 15, 2010 at 3:35 pm |

    A day late or so, but:

    Templates for all of the EPL kits: http://www.historica...

    On the Ticats: I’ll believe Young’s serious about leaving when the team plays somewhere else. Quebec City and Halifax are each half the size of Hamilton (without including the populations of Burlington, Oakville, St. Catherine’s, etc.), while Moncton is about the size of Barrie. The only truly viable option is Ottawa and there’s already an ownership group in place that’s been granted a conditional expansion club once Frank Clair Stadium is renovated. More likely, he’ll sell to someone who a) actually knows sports and b) understands that the economics of a downtown stadium make far more sense than one in the middle of nowhere. The problem is that too many fans of the team can’t see beyond his attempts to bully the city into supporting his (lack of) vision to recognize that he’s just looking for ways to gouge them with parking fees. No really. That’s his big complaint about the downtown location: not enough parking, coupled with some assumption that the team would get the parking concession at a suburban stadium accessible only by car. He’s like a poor man’s Daniel Snyder.