The 2010 season of Major League Soccer begins on March 25 with the debut of Philadelphia Union. With the new season just weeks away, we thought we’d give you a preview of what the new soccer shirts will look like for each MLS club in the 2010 season.
Love them or hate them, here they are:
Chicago Fire:
Chivas USA:
Colorado Rapids:
Columbus Crew:
DC United:
FC Dallas:
Houston Dynamo:
Kansas City Wizards:
LA Galaxy:
New England Revolution:
Philadelphia Union:
Real Salt Lake:
Red Bulls New York:
San Jose Earthquakes:
Seattle Sounders:
Toronto FC:
What are your opinions of the new MLS soccer shirts for the 2010 season? Click the comments link below to share your opinion.
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Looks like there’s only one jersey for Galaxy and NYRB. What about the other?
My only observation is that i dont like the Fire’s away. I really needs some red. The ‘fire’ must have some red.
loading...
there is only one thing missing, the scudetto on the RSL jerseys!
loading...
wow…tank top-like thing for NY? really?
loading...
No, I think that is just a fitted ladies tank-top for female supporters.
I still hate the NY jersey. Seems like the sponsor logo is over the size limit. I appreciate that the team name and the sponsor are one-and-the-same, but why does the logo need to stretch all the way across the front of the kit. I’d have a hard time rocking that kit at a Manhattan pub. I think people would mistake me for a delivery-boy working for Red Bull.
loading...
Who’s the Union’s sponsor? Can’t tell from the pic.
loading...
Its just the team logo, no sponsor.
loading...
Nice look at the World Cup styles for this year if history repeats itself. Have to say that Adidas’ offerings look pretty weak this year. The national teams will look like crap because many of those MLS jerseys do.
The Fire away definitely needs red. They have not had a good jersey since Adidas took over. Why does KC have yellow all of a sudden? Where are the dark/away shirts for NY & LA?
loading...
I’m really bummed out that FCD, KC, Colorado, and New England haven’t sold kit sponsorships yet. At least Colorado’s kit looks ready for a sponsor, with the front clean. Sticking the names on the front just makes it look like New England, FCD, and KC don’t even WANT sponsors…
loading...
Also, I’m disappointed in the Fire’s looks. Won’t be picking up the kit this year, but I really love Columbus’ away shirt. Would that I were a fan…
loading...
Why are you bummed? Because the league needs the money?
Otherwise, I’d be happy to forgo the sponsorships.
loading...
Those teams not picking up shirt sponsors means that there aren’t companies who think those teams are worthwhile investments in their advertising dollars. It wouldn’t be a big deal if other teams didn’t have shirt sponsors, but the fact that everyone else does make these team’s inability to sell themselves as viable concerns more disappointing. That’s where I’m coming from. I’m not in love with the idea of putting advertisements on the front of shirts, but that’s the way it’s done in the soccer world. If a team can’t sell a sponsor that reflects poorly on it and its media coordinators. It ends up reflecting poorly on the league as a whole if some members aren’t seen as a good investment by companies.
loading...
Also, I don’t think it is coincidental that the teams without kit sponsors are the teams that struggle the most at the box office. Granted KC can only fit 10,000 in their stadium, but everything I’ve heard suggests that demand for the team isn’t all that much greater. FCD, NE, and Colorado all draw poorly and don’t have front offices who seem to care all that much about making money from the teams, and are, frankly, hostile to their fans, inhibiting any sort of atmosphere in the stadiums. Again, I don’t think it is coincidental that these teams are the ones without kit sponsors, and I think that’s sad.
loading...
Eh, well, at least it’ll be difficult to tell that I’ve cheaped out and not bought the new TFC shirt. I think they’ve had minor cosmetic changes to it.
loading...
I much prefer KC to have no sponsor than Amway. My friend went Amway and it’s creepy.
loading...
wow…looks like Reebok isn’t the only one who can mess up a Chivas jersey
loading...
As a Galaxian I hate Chivas but I have to admit their new home Jersey is the best looking one of the bunch. However, we might as well wear white T’s. Don’t these designers keep Beckham’s good fashion sense in mind?!
loading...
write this down on all your caladars. January 1 2014. the day adidas stops becoming the shit sponsor of kits for mls!!!!!
loading...
As much as I generally like Adidas, I am glad. Hopefully teams can get their own kit makers again rather than this league wide nonsense. Or at least a company that can make a decent looking shirt. Nearly every Adidas team in every league looks like crap these days.
Jammer – you are on the money with no sponsor rather than Amway. It is like a cult and is very creepy. Plus, who wants that on their shirt? Worse than having Wal-Mart across the front. Hey- maybe Wal-mart could sponsor KC. Reasonably close to corporate, percieved as low quality, and they even have the same colors!
I am surprised that Colorado does not have a sponsor yet. Clean shirt, great stadium, great city/market. Probably that whole thing with Budweiser being the league’s official beer preventing Coors from signing up. I can totally see their logo on the Rapids shirt…
loading...
i think that coors should be in front of the shirt rapids,but looking that budweiser is the official beer maybe they backed up it would look nice coors in front
loading...