For Nike it couldn’t have gone much better. All publicity is precious and it’s even better when it’s free. All eyes are on their new England kit and it’s only been on the shelves for a couple of days.
For the Football Association, it’s slightly more complicated. A gimmick doubtless put forward by a blue-sky thinking executive from Nike’s HQ on America’s west coast has turned in the kind of own goal Gareth Southgate and his players will be hoping to avoid when they get to Germany for the European Championships in three months’ time. As tournament lead-ups go, this one has got itself off to a pretty ropey start.
We know what tournament football kits are. They are a means to make money. Have a look at the old kit. Tweak it. Fiddle with it. Put a new price tag on it. Sell it. On to the next one. It’s a pretty cold, calculated exercise dressed up in the emotion and hyperbole that always accompanies the approach of a summer tournament.
The big sportswear manufacturers and national associations with whom they have their enormous contracts take us all for fools and on the whole we are happy to play along.
This time, however, the FA have allowed themselves to be dragged out of step with some of their public. Whether you are fundamentally offended by Nike’s decision to bastardise the cross of St George on the collar of England’s tournament kit (I am not particularly) or whether you have better things to think about, it’s hard to look at this development and not ask yourself why on earth they even took the risk.
Nike’s decision to replace the horizontal line on the traditional red cross on the back of England’s Euro 2024 shirt with a navy blue, light blue and pink one has caused controversy
But it’s been a brilliant scenario for Nike, with the attention of the public fixed on their shirts
England captain Harry Kane models the new shirt, which went on sale to fans on Monday
The explanation – wrapped up in marketing speak and jargon – is arguably as dismal as the act itself.
‘A playful update to the flag of St George…to unite and inspire’ is the way it has been presented on the blurb accompanying the kit launch.
Subsequent to that, it has been explained that the pink and two shades of blue that make up the vertical strand of the cross are there as a nod to the training kit worn by Sir Alf Ramsey and his players during the 1966 World Cup.
Take a look at those lovely old photographs of Sir Alf and his players from 58 years ago and you will quickly realise that doesn’t really make any sense at all. The tracksuits are blue with red and white trim. Red, white and blue. We may have seen that on another flag with which we are all familiar.
On Thursday, the FA were standing resolutely behind their decision and understandably so. There is nothing they can do about it now.
Southgate will doubtless not appreciate the noise that will now accompany tomorrow’s friendly against Brazil at Wembley. The England manager will hold a pre-game press conference this evening at the team’s base in north London and can now expect to spend much of it talking about things other than football.
We all know what tournament football kits are about. They are simply a means to make money
But how dare the FA let Nike mess with our flag. They should have said no to the kit designer
One of Southgate’s most significant achievements during his years in charge of the team has been to reconnect the England players with the public. Results have certainly oiled the wheels of that process but it has been about more than that. To a degree, England supporters now feel they have a team they can like and relate to. This summer in Germany those players will now wear a shirt embossed with a flag that looks different to all of those hanging from the stands in Gelsenkirchen, Cologne and Frankfurt. Again, it’s hard to see much logic in that.
Speaking eloquently on talkSPORT yesterday the former FA managing director Adrian Bevington explained how the kit manufacturers often look to push the boundaries at this time of year. ‘There is always an issue with the kit launch,’ Bevington said.
Two different worlds collide during the process, for sure. Nike’s commercial instincts pushing against the priorities of a 160-year sporting body that is supposed to carry the best interests of every football player, supporter and administrator at its very heart. It’s not difficult to imagine the conflict.
Ultimately, however, this is the FA’s team, the FA’s kit, the FA’s responsibility. There was always an option to say ‘No’ sitting right there on the table.
Nike, for their part, have been here before with England. It was only last year that they decided not to produce a replica goalkeeper shirt ahead of England’s participation in the Women’s World Cup. Quite simply, they didn’t think it would make them any money.
So we have long known which side of the equation they sit. It’s the side that tells them it’s okay to price the ‘Dri Fit Advantage’ (no, me neither) version of the new England shirt at £124.99 for adults and £119.99 for kids. Shorts (£33) and socks (£18) are extra. It’s the side that makes them think it’s fine to charge another £18 for a name and a number to be stuck on the back.
None of that surprises us. It has long been that way. We may have expected some smarter thinking from the FA, however. In short, it’s never the best idea to mess around with things that don’t actually belong to you.
A gimmick doubtless proposed by an executive from Nike’s HQ on America’s west coast has turned in the kind of own goal Gareth Southgate and his players would have wanted to avoid
Nike have previous with kit controversy, notably with Mary Earps at the World Cup last year
And with that in mind, what is a ‘playful update’ to a flag anyway? Is a flag not just a flag?
Would Nike have tried this with the American Stars and Stripes? Fewer stars perhaps? Maybe just lose Alaska and Texas.
More pertinently, would they have taken a paintbrush to their own special ‘swoosh’ that sits at the centre of all they do and sell?
It seems unlikely they would mess with their own legacy symbol and downright odd that they have been allowed to interfere with one of ours.
Read More: World News | Entertainment News | Celeb News
Mail Online
