Thirty-One Shirts: A World Cup Dominated by Commerce

The quadrennial parade of World Cup shirts is upon us, and with it, a stark illustration of market consolidation in the sportswear universe. Two names, Adidas and Nike, overwhelm the menu. Their sheer dominance raises an open question about whether such concentrated power benefits the sartorial state of international football. They are joined by Puma, which appears to have cornered the African market, and a few smaller players like Joma and Brooks, but the story of the 2010 kits is one of corporate behemoths.

One competing nation is missing from the display. North Korea have reportedly signed a deal with Legea, but as yet, no shirt has materialised for public consumption.

The Template Approach

For the giants, a template-driven approach seems to be the order of the day. Adidas has supplied something off the peg for Slovakia to mark their first major tournament, a bland offering with a badge sewn on. Nigeria receives similarly uninspired treatment, a design so generic one assumes the creators were allowed to leave work early. Even for the hosts, South Africa, Adidas plays it safe with a simple yellow and green shirt, distinguished only by a faint pattern on the collar that resembles leopardskin.

Nike, meanwhile, is obsessed with ventilation holes and recycled polyester. The shirts for Australia and Brazil are peppered with them, a feature of questionable necessity for a South African winter. While the environmental credentials are noted, supposedly saving thirteen million plastic bottles from landfill, the designs themselves feel constrained. The USA’s kit features a sash that looks as if it was half-erased, a pale imitation of what could have been a bold design, while Slovenia’s is adorned with a graphic that could be a mountain range or a struggling company’s sales graph.

Breaking the Mould

Some nations manage to escape the homogeny. Chile has partnered with American brand Brooks, making its World Cup debut with a simple, clean design. Joma, whose portfolio includes Watford and Wycombe Wanderers, has produced a more daring effort for Honduras, complete with go-faster stripes. Even within the Puma stable, which largely conforms to a standard look with a national animal printed on the shoulder, there are variations. The fennec fox on Algeria’s kit is a nice embellishment, but the washed-out grey star on Ghana’s shirt feels like a missed opportunity.

The most distinctive designs often come from a strong national identity. Serbia’s shirt, from Nike, incorporates the country’s coat of arms as a massive white cross, making it one of the tournament’s more memorable efforts. Adidas has produced a clean, classic shirt for Argentina, though some purists have questioned the sky-blue epaulettes. Their work for Germany is also elegant, featuring thin stripes in the national colours, but is let down by massive blank spaces on the sleeves.

A Changing of the Guard

Perhaps the most significant story is in France. After forty years with Adidas, the French Football Federation (FFF) will switch to Nike from 2011. The final Adidas design nods to the 1998 World Cup-winning shirt, but some have suggested it is a deliberate act of sabotage before the partnership ends. More criticism, however, should be directed at the FFF for its “stylised” reinterpretation of the team badge.

Italy’s Puma shirt is a contender for the tournament’s worst, featuring what looks like the face of an angry robot on the front and a bizarre collar. Switzerland’s kit from the same manufacturer is simply confused, sporting two collars and two badges. Elsewhere, England’s new shirt has divided opinion, leaning perhaps too far into leisurewear and controversially jettisoning traditional navy blue shorts for an all-white strip.

The tournament has just begun, but on the evidence of the kits, creativity has taken a back seat to commerce. As teams take to the pitch, the battle between Adidas and Nike for market share will be played out for all to see.