Big baseball news yesterday, as word began circulating that Under Armour will take over from Majestic as MLB’s official outfitter in 2020, with Fanatics serving as MLB’s favored retailer. The news was first reported by Sports Business Daily and was soon confirmed by my ESPN colleague Darren Rovell. I strongly suggest that you read both of those pieces before proceeding further.
Now let’s shift into FAQ mode:
So will MLB uniforms be made by Under Armour starting next year?
No.
The year after that?
No.
The year after that?
No.
The year after THAT?Ӭ
Yes. Majestic will still have three more seasons — 2017, 2018, and 2019 — before Under Armour takes over. I’m pretty sure that’s the longest gap we’ve ever had between the news of a league-wide deal and the deal’s effective date.
Why did they announce it so far in advance?
They didn’t. As of now, neither MLB nor Under Armour has said anything about the deal. But SportsBizDaily broke the news — a huge scoop on their part. The weird thing is that MLB announced that it was extending its deal with Majestic through 2019 just a year and a half ago. So Majestic will now spend most of that contract term as a lame duck.
Are these types of deals always arranged so far in advance, even if we don’t know about them?
Good question. The Nike/NBA deal was announced more than two years prior to its effective date, and the Adidas/NHL deal was almost exactly two years prior.
Did you know this deal was in the works?
I’ve heard rumors and whispers about Under Armour wanting to get the MLB deal for many years now. But I didn’t know anything about this specific deal.
Under Armour’s college baseball uniforms have the UA logo on the chest. Will that happen with their MLB jerseys too?
College baseball jerseys all have the maker’s mark on the chest — it’s an NCAA thing, not an Under Armour thing. While it’s possible that the maker’s mark on MLB jerseys could shift from the sleeve to the chest, there’s no reason to think that’s imminent. Think of football: The maker’s marks on college jerseys are all on the chest, but in the NFL they’re on the sleeve. I expect a similar arrangement will be used for MLB jerseys.
I do think it’s worth mentioning, however, that the Majestic logo is extremely compact and has always been very small on MLB jerseys (and pants, for that matter). I suspect that the Under Armour logo will have a larger footprint.
Will the Yankees wear the Under Armour logo?
Good question. Too soon to say. They’ve basically enjoyed most-favored-nation status with Majestic, but it’s not clear whether Under Armour will be willing to carve out that same exception for them.
Will New Era keep making MLB caps in 2020?
Yes. That deal is unaffected by yesterday’s news.
Will Nike keep making MLB undershirts in 2020?
No. Under Armour will apparently take over that license. (I say “apparently” because it’s not explicitly stated in any of the coverage I’ve seen, and I haven’t been able to confirm it one way or the other. The one thing that’s clear is that Nike will be out in 2020. It’s possible — but in my view unlikely — that a third party could end up with the undershirt license. I’ll try to find out more.)
Will Stance keep making MLB socks in 2020?
Good question. Socks are not mentioned in any of the coverage I’ve seen so far, and my Stance contact was traveling yesterday, so I couldn’t get confirmation from him. But I’ll say this: I don’t think MLB announced its first-ever official sock partner this year just so they could then give the sock deal to Under Armour. I’m fairly certain MLB hosiery will remain with Stance.
Who will make dugout jackets and sweatshirts starting in 2020?
Not 100% positive, but I’m reasonably certain it will be Under Armour.
Who will make the umpires’ uniforms starting in 2020?
Not 100% positive, but I’m reasonably certain it will be Under Armour.
How does Fanatics play into this deal?
The nuances and specifics of the Fanatics part of this story are, frankly, somewhat confusing to me, but the gist is that they’re trying to create a more vertically integrated retailing system. From a Uni Watch perspective — i.e., a perspective that’s cares about retail jerseys only to the extent that they affect what we see on the field — this means the MLB uni-verse will be more retail-driven than ever.
So does this mean Under Armour or Fanatics will create crazy new uniform designs for MLB teams?
That’s ultimately up to the teams. Remember how everyone thought Nike would radically alter the look of the NFL? That hasn’t happened, at least not with most of the league, because the teams are the clients and the client always calls the shots. If an MLB team approaches Under Armour and says, “Give us a makeover,” then that’s what they’ll get. And if they say, “No, we’re good,” then they’ll stick with what they have. Simple.
Didn’t you write something about Under Armour’s baseball fabric a few years back?
Yes. Back in 2010 I wrote an ESPN piece about an Under Armour faux-flannel fabric that nicely mimics the textured look of real flannels. Here’s another example. Personally, I’d love it if something like that came to MLB.
If an MLB team was considering a redesign, will they wait until Under Armour takes over?
Not necessarily. Let’s look at some comparable examples from other leagues: In 2011, which was the last year of Reebok’s NFL deal, the Bills got a full-scale makeover; this year, which is the last year of Adidas’s NBA deal, the Jazz and Kings have gotten makeovers; this is also the last year of Reebok’s NHL deal, and the Panthers have gotten a makeover. So teams don’t necessarily put their plans on hold just because a new outfitter is waiting in the wings.
What happens to Majestic after 2019?
Another good question. MLB represents the bulk of Majestic’s business. They have no history or credibility making uniforms for any other sport, so they can’t just pivot over to football or basketball. And they’re not a lifestyle brand, so it’s not like they have a sneaker business or a series of mega-stores to fall back on. Even if they salvage something like, say, an MiLB-wide deal (just speaking hypothetically there — I have no knowledge of any such deal being in the works), it’d be a huge step down for them.
On balance, do you think this deal with be good or bad for MLB uniforms?
Too soon to say. The Fanatics aspect is almost certainly a negative, because, as noted above, it will make things even more retail-driven than they already are. But there’s no reason Under Armour can’t produce good uniforms. Lots of their college designs are perfectly fine, and I hope we get to see that faux-flannel fabric. As always, it comes back to the teams — they’re the ones who’ll make the final call.
Click to enlarge
Collector’s Corner
By Brinke Guthrie
What you see above is a 1972 Cincinnati Bengals poster by the legendary artist George Bartell. It’s currently available on eBay — pretty nice, right?
But I’ve also seen another version of this poster, showing the players wearing bengal-striped helmets. The thing is, the Bengals didn’t yet have striped helmets in 1972 — they started wearing them in 1981. Pro Football Journal has a story about the headwear discrepancy here, with the blog author theorizing that perhaps the team was thinking about helmet stripes for the 1972 season but didn’t go that way. And Paul points out that the striped version looks a lot like the helmet Paul Brown was holding in this famous photo.
Now for the rest of this week’s picks:
• Some more Bartel art from the same season can be found in this Houston Oilers poster.
• Does “Jason” know his vintage Kansas City Royals ceramic baseball bank is listed for sale on eBay?
• I’ve done Collector’s Corner for a few years now, so there aren’t too many NFL items I haven’t already seen. But this is a new one to me: an album to collect all your NFL Sunbeam NFL stickers in. Looks to be from 1975. Here’s what the stickers look like, with those classic NFL graphics (I had the Bengals one on a light switch plate!). It appears they did the ill-fated WFL too.
• Take a look at this! Here’s a set of 22 MLB cardboard team logo signs from the 1970s. I had quite a few of these.
• Reader Will Scheibler sent over a few hockey items for this week. First, a Munro tabletop hockey game, starring Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita. Next, a 1964 Maple Leafs coloring book. And finally, some Leafs vintage “Little NHL” gloves.
• This 1969 book of NFL action photography from Honeywell surely has some good shots in it.
• As you know, here at Collector’s Corner we love just about anything DeLong has ever made for the NFL and MLB. So you know we like this great L.A. Rams quilted parka. Love how the “LA” is inset on the first two letters of “Rams” on the back.
• The Rams also appear — in the classic old blue/white color scheme — on the cover of this 1967 “This Is NFL Football” booklet.
• Here’s a set of four different Miami Dolphins mugs/cups, each with a different facemask depiction.
• This vintage sticker of Charlie-O. the donkey (former mascot of the K.C. and Oakland A’s) is in great shape.
The Ticker
By Mike Chamernik
Baseball News: Indians 1B Mike Napoli wore American flag socks yesterday (from Eric Brunnell). … An Ontario judge dismissed an application to ban the Indians’ team name and logo during ALCS. … Here’s the story of how the Dodgers’ interlocking LA logo was designed in 1957 (from Todd Radom). … I love this “Salvy Splash” Royals pumpkin, in honor of catcher Salvador Perez’s postgame Gatorade showers. … Here’s a good colorized photo of the 1917 White Sox (from Will Scheibler). … Frank Kaminsky, a White Sox fan from the Chicago area, wore a Steve Bartman Cubs jersey to the United Center for last night’s Hornets/Bulls preseason game. … Cleveland has worn the Wahoo cap throughout the postseason, including last night, but skipper Terry Francona switched to a block-C cap for his postgame presser last night. … A new cartoon takes some mild liberties with several MLB uniforms. Interestingly, all of the players are depicted going at least somewhat high-cuffed (from @TweedsTweets). … Cleveland starter Trevor Bauer took 10 stitches in his pinkie a few days ago after an accident with a drone. The stitches opened up during the 1st inning last night, leading to a lot of blood on his uniform and shoes.
Pro Football News: The Jets wore a No. 90 memorial helmet decal last night to honor defensive end Dennis Byrd, who died on Saturday. Byrd, who was paralyzed during a game in 1992, had his number retired by the Jets in 2012. … The Packers have tweaked their Color Rush pants since the unveiling. They now mirror the team’s Lombardi-era unis. Green Bay will wear the uniform against Chicago on Thursday (from @TheDapperPacker). … The Dallas Cowboys now own the trademark to the phrase “How ’Bout Them Cowboys” and can use it on merchandise. The phrase goes back to 1992 and is attributed to coach Jimmy Johnson. … Broncos kicker Brandon McManus uses a sander to get his cleats ready on gameday. … Washington QB Kirk Cousins wore a burgundy blazer with an “HTTR” pocket square after Sunday’s win over the Eagles (from Tommy Turner). … Raiders owner Mark Davis wears outdated team apparel. His jackets are made by Reebok, not Nike. Davis has always been a pretty peculiar dude (from Dave Keitel and Rudy Gutierrez). … Brad Eenhuis spotted a bunch of blank New Orleans VooDoo jerseys at a Goodwill in Iowa. The team played in the Arena League from 2004 to 2008. … On a related note, this week the AFL saw Orlando, Portland, and the LA Kiss all fold, and Jacksonville and Arizona depart for the Indoor Football league. Only four Arena League teams remain.
College Football News: Georgia punter Rodrigo Blankenship nearly lost his glasses while making a tackle this past weekend (from Dave Murphy). … Louisiana Tech is wearing a decal for RB Jaqwis Dancy, who’s battling Hodgkin’s lymphoma (from @bulldogsnbraves, via Phil).
Hockey News: The Red Wings aren’t wearing their Farewell to the Joe patches (from PJ Kuzdal). … The Devils’ new graphic designer Anthony Zych created his first gameday poster for the team. He’ll make one for each home game this season. Paul profiled Zych last year when he was with the Blue Jackets. … The WHL’s Moose Jaw Warriors changed their glove color and pants stripes (from Wade Heidt). … Here’s a very, very cool infographic showing which NHL teams use which colors (from Aaron Husul).
Basketball News: Rajon Rondo wore pink shoes last night. … Michael Carter-Williams, who was just traded to Chicago, was slated to wear No. 1 with the Bulls, but changed course and will now wear No. 7. He didn’t want to drum up any controversy, since former Bull Derrick Rose wore the number through last year. MCW wore No. 1 in college and during his early NBA days with Philadelphia. … In addition to the championship banner, the Cavs will hang a banner with the names of all the season ticket holders from last year. … The logo for the Auburn basketball charity golf tournament roasts noted alum Charles Barkley. The Chuckster is famous for the hitch in his swing. … The Thunder might roll out an emoji of a new logo (from Sam Scovill). … The Blazers play ping pong on a really neat court-themed table. … New uniform for Arkansas State basketball (from Chris Buttgen). … New collar style for Northwestern (from Matthew Sampson).
Grab Bag: Bruno Mars performed on Saturday Night Live this past weekend, and his backup singers wore old jerseys. The guy in the middle wore a Todd Hundley Mets T-shirt jersey (from Douglas Ford and Chris Flinn).
“Will Nike keep making MLB undershirts in 2020?”
I was thinking about this this morning and my thought was if Nike continues to supply undershirts that UA might bring the collar a little bit closer to the neck to hide the swoosh.
But hey, at least it’s not Adidas…right?
I believe Nike is out in 2020 too, MLB from then on will just be UA/New Era for apparel. The agreement will also allow UA to start making licensed MLB headwear.
1) I already stated that Nike is out. It just isn’t 100% clear to me whether (a) Under Armour will take over the undershirt license or (b) someone else would take over that license.
2) Your point about headwear is incorrect, at least as it pertains to on-field caps. Those will continue to be made by New Era.
Perhaps UA will make a line of retail caps to supplement what New Era sells (or perhaps not — I honestly have no idea), but that’s not Uni Watch’s concern.
The artist’s name got swallowed up in Brinke’s second paragraph. The link is reduced to the ‘period’.
Fixed.
Proofreading: “interlocking LA logo was design”
Fixed.
I would love to see the faux-flannel in appropriate throwbacks – I am sure I am not the only one.
And I bet it would look good with some of the modern designs too.
This is pretty much the first thing that came to mind when I read the first paragraph. I would actually consider purchasing a Tigers road jersey with the heather grey look, either in the old generic look from the 60s, or even the current design (which in my humble opinion, would look better if the dropped the white outline from the letters and numbers).
Does the faux-flannel come in white? (No idea if you can tell the difference anyway.)
Collector’s Corner:
“The thing is, the Bengals didn’t yet have striped helmets in 1972 – they started wearing them in 1971.”
Should say “they started wearing them in 1981.”
Fixed.
Fanatics has been fulfilling MLBshop.com orders for at least a year or so, so I don’t think it’s a big deal. Fanatics also runs the NFL shop site, too. The leagues are white-labeling Fanatics’ order-fulfillment sites because the stock and ordering processes are virtually identical. MLBshop.com has a Fanatics logo on its home page.
I’m not necessarily endorsing this, but I will say I’ve ordered plenty of stuff from Fanatics and I usually get my stuff within three or four days with no issues.
I’m not sure the Fanatics side of things will have much impact. Fanatics already seems to run the MLB.com retail backend, so this looks more like a ratification of the status quo with incremental expansion, rather than some revolution in MLB’s merchandising practices or Fanatics’ access.
No matter what happens, if UA can persuade the Phillies to adopt faux-flannel gray for their road uniforms, instead of their current off-white, it will all be worth it. “Gray” has become too light across the league, but the Phillies are the worst offenders. If you see a Phillies player on the road up close in daylight, it’s honestly hard to distinguish his jersey from home white. Especially, as happened to me one day at RFK Stadium, if there’s a Phillies team photographer standing nearby wearing a gray flannel throwback jersey.
Huh. I actually prefer the Phillies’ road grays to the home whites. The white border around the lettering makes the jersey pop for me. I find the regular home unis to look a bit cluttered. Plus, red pinstripes just look weird..
their home whites have the bloodstripes, so how do you mistaken their away and home jerseys? Are you talking about their cream colored alternates?
Are they really known as bloodstripes? I’ve not heard that before.
I don’t know if they officially are or not, but that is what we called them on a sports forum I posted on. I think it is just a term some fans use for them.
Interesting. I’ve never heard that.
I’m not saying the Phillies road grays look just like the Phillies home pinks, I’m saying their road gray looks too much like white in general. Guess I should have been clearer in phrasing that.
The Phillies shouldn’t have road grays. They should be powder blue
Yes. Powder blue is a ROAD color. I hate when teams wear it at home. Especially with white pants. They look like frakkin Smurfs.
Maybe instead of pillbox hats, they can wear Phrygian caps for Smurfs promotion! Their 60th anniversary is coming up in 2018!
What? Nothing about Trevor Bauer’s blood-soaked uni and cleats? :)
Here we go:
link
I’ll add that to the Ticker.
Also, I heard during the pregame on the radio that Cleveland wore the dark softball tops to help hide the potential bleeding. The blood wouldn’t show as much if he wiped it on the dark jersey. Guess they should have gone red throwbacks for how bad it was dripping
Hmm…normally I do not have brand loyalty when it comes to jersey suppliers…nor do I have strong feelings about who supplies what and for how much…however I am a bit bummed about the under armor announcement. To me Majestic is just as much a part of baseball as three bags, home plate, and a mound…one could even image that Majestic was a subsidiary of the MLB due to there seemingly symbiotic relationship. Oh well, the under armor era will be here soon
“To me Majestic is just as much a part of baseball as three bags, home plate, and a mound”…
Long-time baseball fan, eh?
To me, Majestic is just as much a part of baseball as camouflage caps, pink outs and the Budweiser Bleachers.
Yup. I prefer jerseys without any logos. Well, aside from the baseball club’s logo.
Holy cow, the colorized pic of the 1917 ChiSox is gorgeous! Kudos to the artist. Beautiful work.
Magnificent. Would be great if these were brought back for a centennial celebration.
Canadian Colour has a website but content release lags behind his Facebook page, and Twitter account.
link
He set up an additional Facebook page ‘Baseball in Color’ back in July “I have been colourizing a few baseball photos recently and I realize that they may not be of interest to everyone (and many of the ones I am doing are not Canadian). So, I have set up a new account on FB (and Twitter)”:
link
when you are writing both the questions and the answers on a FAQ, do you think it is a little weird to respond to a question with “Good question”?
Ha! I don’t mean it in a self-congratulatory way. Some of these questions really were posed to me by various readers yesterday afternoon/evening. But your point is amusing and well taken.
I know I have seen it used done on other website FAQ sections and I have always found it strange.
AFL may still move on w/ only 4 teams. I read that they still had a dispersal draft from the others that left/folded.
The USFL made plans for the 1986 season, too
I think the best part of the Tito Francona hat tweet is in the game photo he’s reminding everyone Cleveland is playing the Blue Jays.
Best part of the hat tweet is he’s flipping off the camera :-P
Your description of Frank Kaminsky isn’t quite accurate, it should read “an embarrassment to White Sox fans.”
It’s a pet peeve of mine. People like that just give the rest of us a bad reputation.
Yeah, I have a pretty low tolerance for smack talk under most circumstances, but this is a particularly dickish thing to do.
Cubs twitter gave him a pretty good trolling response: link
As a life long Sox fan, while I may not go to Frank’s lengths to be a dick, any opportunity to hate on the Cubs is fine with me.
The Packers have tweaked their Color Rush pants since the unveiling. They now mirror the team’s Lombardi-era unis.
Yeah, not really. They took out the gap between the stripes, so they mimic the current pants, instead of the jersey stripes. Claiming it’s a callback to the Lombardi era is kinda stupid.
Green/gold/green is the striping pattern Lombardi chose for link. Not to mention link, although that only lasted a single season before Green Bay started link.
I love this change. I like it because it obeys the vexillological and heraldic rule of tincture (white and gold blend and muddy when placed next to each other), because it references a sadly-abandoned part of the Packers’ past, and because it just plain looks better. I’m hoping it augurs a change to the road jerseys.
But in context, it’s going to be used with the current road jersey, which creates a clumsy pairing. They would have been better off matching the pant stripe to the jersey in this case, even if that striping pattern, on its own, is not as good.
Originally, that’s link.
I don’t know why they changed the stripes, but I’m glad they did. Even if it creates a mismatch in this game.
I’d like to know how far along the discussion went before they decided against yellow jerseys, which would have matched the helmets and pants.
They could have done throwbacks in link or link. Wish that had been the route taken.
“The Packers have tweaked their Color Rush pants since the unveiling. They now mirror the team’s Lombardi-era unis.”
The actually completely mirror the Edmonton Eskimos road pants from just over a decade ago.
link
Old Maple Leafs logo in the NHL in Color info graphic.
Penguins too.
Not all college baseball jerseys have the maker’s mark on the chest. Cal State Fullerton has it (Nike’s swoosh) (Miami did too when it was Nike) on its left sleeve as do some other schools. I think Rawlings and Wilson schools do the same thing.
This is what I was thinking too. All college baseball jerseys don’t have them, but are “allowed” to have them. That’s NCAA rules that permit a maker’s mark and/or trademarked logo that is restricted by size.
Naturally, UA, Nike, adidas, and those big box outfitters will put their logo wherever they please. Really, it probably depends on the template each uses on where the maker’s mark ends up being.
The Thunder might roll out an emoji of a new logo (from Sam Scovill)
Is that link an actual team logo? It has a cool old-school style that would be an improvement even if the Thunder didn’t have the worst logo in all of pro sports.
I hope so. Their current logo belongs in the D-League. I can’t believe they’ve stuck with it this long.
The NHL color infographic looks a little off in the division breakouts. It seems to show the Dallas Stars wearing blue for instance and I can’t find a representation of the LA Kings among others. The center interconnected design is spot on amazing though.
The infographic shows Dallas as green and grey/silver. LA Kings are next to them, both around 6 o’clock.
The quick error I see is Vancouver Canucks who are represented as blue & white. They should have green in there too. Tricky to tweak the graphic to accommodate that though.
RSB
Do you think this has anything to do with the unpopularity of the “diaper cut” authentic jerseys they came out with this year? I know I used to buy jerseys before but not after they had that plain white flap below the belt. Just curious.
No, I don’t think it has anything to do with that.
I don’t think the Dodgers designed that logo, they took it from the old PCL L.A. Angels, who they had purchased before they moved west. They did “redesign” a bit though, I guess.
link
Yes, I know Wikipedia is not always a dependable source. But I’ve seen this verified elsewhere.
Yes, based on the letter it seemed as though the Dodgers were already leaning in the direction of an interlocking “LA”, which the PCL Angels link. The Dodgers were aware of the Angels, of course, since they link.
But from the letter it doesn’t appear that the Boston-based Tim McAuliffe himself was familiar with what the minor league club in Los Angeles was doing.
It’s interesting that McAuliffe recommended against adopting the interlocking “LA” design, himself preferring one in which “the two letters (are) standing out by themselves”. Possibly like link of Chuck Connors?
If McAuliffe deserves any credit at all, it could possibly be for removing the top serif from the “A”. link starts with link, removes the serif and ends up with link. He may well have been the person to suggest that change.
FWIW, I also think it’s kind of funny that McAuliffe was involved with the logo, since his company had inadvertently(?) changed the Dodgers’ cap logo link just a few years earlier.
McAuliffe’s reference to the non-connected LA as a “monogram” mildly suggests to me that the A might have been nested in the L, or the letters otherwise arranged together rather than just set side by side. Still, either way, two things: 1) I’d love to see McAuliffe’s alternate “monogram” design; and 2) I’m certain that the Angels-inspired LA the Dodgers eventually adopted is vastly superior to whatever non-connected version McAuliffe proposed.
How about extending the serif on top of the red A to both sides?
link
Those WFL “sunbeam” cards in the collectors corner are cards I designed for the guys who created WFL Cards… they asked me to mimic the old retro look… they gave me a set. If you want close up pics I can send them to you paul.
Rodrigo Blankenship is a great name! Also, I always enjoy Collector’s Corner. Good work.
The Devils’ new graphic designer Anthony Zych created his first gameday poster for the team.
Looks great! I’m a gig poster fanatic; this stuff is my bread and butter.
Do you think a bigger manufacturer taking over the official on-field partner title will affect the price of retail jerseys? I always assumed with Majestic being much smaller and more detail oriented than a big company like Nike, Adidas, UA, etc. that’s what made the jersey prices so high ($332 and change for the Mets throwback jersey this season). Could the increased manufacturing capabilities drive down retail price or would they go the opposite route and leave it as is and rake in the profits?
Retail jerseys aren’t a concern or interest of mine, so I have no idea how to answer this question. Would anyone else like to weigh in?
I will weigh in that it may drive the price down but i don’t if if the USA plant or a sub contracted foreign plant makes the jerseys. Keep in mind though that I think jersey prices went up when nike started making NFL jersey which could happen here as well.
I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure the price of retail jerseys is driven by the market and not production costs. Jerseys are insanely expensive simply because people are willing to pay the price. Look at Ebbets Field Flannels. Their products are handcrafted in the USA, and of much better quality than current authentics. But the lack of major licenses means they can only charge so much. This is true of jerseys and jackets, anyway. Caps cost more (although an EFF cap can be had for about the same price as a New Era cap with their many specials).
When Majestic only made BP jerseys, I thought that they were pretty good, but once they started making authentic game jerseys around 2000, I always thought that they felt cheaper in quality compared to Russell, Rawlings and AIS game jerseys. As for being “more detail oriented”, one only has to look at the throwback unis they make with varying degrees of inconsistency (superwide sleeve trim and V-neck trim, baggy cuts, incorrect numbers and lettering). So maybe it’s time for someone else to take a crack at this…
I would think that by going to the local park and seeing all the fake jerseys out there that the market does not entirely dictate the price of the jersey. the casual fan is not willing to spend the amount of money on an authentic jersey when they can buy a knock-off for 1/4 of the price. In response to Ron I can only speak for the Mets jerseys I own but I do think Majestic did an all-around good job on the jerseys they’ve produced.
Jackets, too? Or just jerseys and pants?
I assume you’re referring to MLB and Majestic/UA here.
Although I don’t know this for a fact, I’m assuming UA would take over dugoutwear, and also umpiring attire.
I am not too happy with this since the majestic factory is right by where I grew up. However the union that makes the uniforms extended their deal with Majestic till 2019 just recently. I wonder if this drove up the price for MLB and factored into the decision since the year after UA takes over.
I can not wait to see Mr. Zych’s poster live and in person when I go to the Devs home opener tonight! I loved his Blue Jacksts posters and can’t wait to see what he can do with the Devils.
I see the deal as probably being good for some reasons – especially the quality of the “replica” uniforms. Currently Majestic doesn’t make the best retail jerseys, many are of iffy quality and UA usually is pretty good.
I’d be amiss to say I’m a little scared about the lack of Nike being a Nike fan, I guess all will now be UA.
Also wonder how UA will deal with the team-specific nuances, including how the Cardinals have their logo chain stitched.
United Artists are now making uniforms? (I kid, I kid.)
All the players would be in tuxedo’s and say bad puns!
I think the Under Armour deal is a lose lose for baseball. I would have liked to see them go more traditional, but nowadays tradition is out the window. The old jersey manufacturers are history, now its all shoe brands. If any brands logo would look good on the sleeve, it would be the Nike Swoosh. It flows and isnt bulky like Under Armour or Adidas. I guess I will be saving money during their partnership, so that is a plus.
I didn’t mind the Russell Athletics’ “R” on the sleeves. I didn’t like Majestic, and now that I’m finally okay with them, UA outbids them (was there a bidding war or did Majestic decide to stop doind business with MLB?) and takes over.
As far as the Bengals go, I think they should wear the Ken Anderson throwbacks once or twice a season. I know it’s a bit boring, but I still find it a nice, conservative look, which is a needed alternative to the over-the-top insanity that’s affecting some pro and college football teams nowadays.
Just my two cents.
totally agree, i grew up on that look- I call it the “Virgil Carter.”
Majestic produces their MLB jerseys in eastern PA. Will UA do the same domestically, and if so, where? Anyone have info? Thanks. -C.
PS — And if the info passed along by Jason is true concerning the recent union deal, it would be a sad but familiar story of how unions win battles, but lose wars.
here is the article I read link
Recently purchased some Fanatics t-shirts for the playoffs. Sent them back, fit was all wrong and very cheap material. Nothing like the quality stuff you get from Magestic. Fanatics better step up their game between now and 2020.
Majestic does make quality T’s…except for the World Series. The last three Giants WS Champions shirts I have bought all seem to have been farmed out to someone and they just dropped the Majestic M on ’em. A distinct different in quality from their usual seasonal lines. Not that I minded that much, we still got a WS win.
Have found that UA’s apparel is of very cheap quality especially when compared to Nike and Adidas.
Hyundai cars were once cheap, and so were Toyota and Honda. Once the dough start rolling in and customers and baseball clubs demand higher quality stuff, the manufacturing will catch up (read: they’ll put more money into it).
Devils game day posters sold out! Drat!
i kind of feel bad for majestic– this has to be scary news for the employees.
The more things’ll change, the more they’ll stay the same.
I think the UA contract is mostly irrelevant to the evolution of MLB uniforms. Sure, they’ll change, and they’ll change in a UA-driven way, but that was going to happen regardless of whatever corporation got in bed with MLB. We already have more than enough evidence that majestic can go off template and make some ugly unis – lookin’ at you, ‘Zona – but at this stage I don’t think any one company has any technical advantage over another.
It’ll get a different corporate name, but whatever super fabric gets used with UA will be essentially the same as the super fabric used by anyone else.
BTW: Within months of “UA Athletic heather grey becoming a thing, there will be a ton of people stating that they’re tired of faux-vintage, just like they are the vintage cream unis now. Like I said, they more they change…
RSB
Funny, I just saw a catalog with a model modeling a heather grey shirt (or blouse). That got me thinking: how many women are named after colors (or was it the other way around?): Heather Grey, Kelly Green, Hunter Green (I guess that could be a guy or a girl), etc.
Then again, why wear flannel when you can wear cotton?
link
Sports Business Daily reported back in April that VF was looking to sell off Majestic, and felt UA and Fanatics would be good suitors. I doubt VF would say “sure, we’ll sell the company to you guys in 4 years,” but interesting nonetheless link?
VF/Majestic does sell licensed apparel for all 4 major league sports, and a lot of that is the non- or league-branded stuff you see in Walmart, Target, Kmart, etc. For example, the MLB “road” player name/number t-shirts (Like “New York” across the front instead of the interlocking NY, etc.).
I seem to recall that the Packers, in the earlier days, had a chance to refurbish their attire to distinguish from the shade of yellow employed by the University of Michigan. Oddly enough, a year after Michigan goes back to white pants on the road, GB finds a way to work them into the color rush. Conspiracy!
Terry Butcher sets the standard for blood-stained uniforms:
link