Football kits rarely become the subject of public debate, but now, in two countries, they have become a political issue—and in both countries, the debate is pretty hilarious.
Debate in England About Multicolor Cross Sign at Back of England Kit
Nike's new England shirt for the Euro 2024 has caused controversy because of a "modified version of the St. George's flag" on the back of the collar, with horizontal lines in the colors navy, blue and purple.
Some football fans find the redesign disrespectful and offensive. Politicians such as Labour Party leader Keir Starmer and Labour MP Emily Thorberry have echoed this criticism and called on Nike to change the design.
The multicolored St. George's Cross is a tribute to the team that won the 1966 World Cup
However, according to the Football Association of England, the multicolored St. George's Cross is a tribute to the team that won the 1966 World Cup.
"The new England 2024 home kit has a number of design elements meant as a tribute to the 1966 World Cup-winning team," an FA spokesperson said. The colored trim on the cuffs is inspired by the training gear worn by England's 1966 heroes, and the same colors also feature on the design on the back of the collar."
Nike also felt compelled to issue a statement on Friday: "We've been a proud partner of the FA since 2012 and understand the significance and importance of the St George's Cross, and it was never our intention to offend, given what it means to England fans."
This is not the first time an England kit has a unique interpretation of the St. George's flag; multicolor crosses were already featured on the jersey in 2011-12. The kit was designed by Peter Saville and intended to represent the country's diverse cultural makeup. Everything is fine.
Footy Headlines Opinion - Debate Inappropriate
For us and probably everyone following football kits for a few years, experimenting with colors and little elements on football kits is nothing but the most normal thing in life. It seems to be the Zeitgeist to complain about virtually everything - the controversy about that collar element is bullshit. As simple as that.
People complaining do know a little about football kits, obviously
What would justify a massive debate in football kits would be, for example, a non-white England home kit or a missing England crest on the kit, as done by Puma (and now Nigeria). But not a minor collar element.
What is surely right is the debate about the extremely high prices of the kits, specifically the authentic Kids' shirts. The authentic Kids' shirt retails at 120 GBP, which is insane, considering the Adults' cost just 5 GBP more, 125 GB. The replica costs 65 GBP (Kids) and 85 GBP (Adults).
Debate in Germany About US Company Signing German National Team
In Germany, three important politicians have expressed their unhappiness with Nike becoming the new kit maker of the German national soccer team, replacing the German company Adidas. Below are the comments of the German economics minister, health minister, and the Bavarian prime minister.
German Economics Minister, Robert Habeck:
"I can hardly imagine the German jersey without the three stripes. Adidas and black, red and gold have always belonged together for me. A piece of German identity. I would have liked a bit more local patriotism," added the 54-year-old.
German Health Minister - Karl Lauterbach:
"Adidas should no longer be the national soccer jersey? A US company instead? I think that's a bad decision, where commerce destroys a tradition and a piece of home..."
Bavarian Minister - Markus Söder:
DFB and Adidas: German football has always been a piece of German economic history. The national team plays in three stripes - that was as clear as the ball being round and a game lasting 90 minutes. The success story began in 1954 with the unforgettable World Cup victory, which gave our country renewed self-confidence. It is, therefore, wrong, a shame, and incomprehensible that this story should end now. German soccer is pure homeland - and not a pawn in international corporate battles. Commerce is not everything. Despite all the economic challenges, the DFB would have benefited from more straightforwardness.
Footy Headlines Opinion - Complaints About German Football Signing With Nike Wrong - Opposite is True
We think the German politicians wrongly complain about the DFB signing with Nike. While it is a massive change after more than 70 years of Adidas being a DFB partner, it is the most normal thing in football that there is a kit maker switch. In football and economics, it is normal for a foreign company to take over a domestic club or country.
The German Football Federation finally ends its corruption-like processes
Indeed, Nike has offered the German Football Federation "by far" the best offer. The DFB can use this money for grassroots football.
German football had a lot of corruption in the old Adidas days
In 2006 and 2007, Nike attempted to secure the rights of the German national football teams. Still, Germany signed with Adidas despite Nike's much better financial offer. The German Football Association, supposedly a charitable organization, gave up a lot of money.
Back then, the decision came close to corruption. The back-then CEO of FC Bayern Munich, Kalle Rummenigge, threatened the DFB on behalf of his shareholder: if the DFB accepted Nike's offer, the FC Bayern players would no longer be released for international matches.
The decision reflects a shift towards transparency and competition in German soccer, which is always favorable.
As discovered by the German newspaper "taz", the German Minister of Economics and Technology did not keep to his own words in the past 😁. He was photographed wearing Nike sportswear and Asics shoes while jogging.
What do you think of politicians complaining about football kit designs and deals? Let us know in the comments below.