Which WPS team's kit do you like the most?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Milan on February 25, 2009 at 11:33am

The only thing that I could think is that Puma may be trying a new niche thing to sell in the women's game. Kind of when Brandi took her shirt off in the 99 WC and before you know it the sports bra sales went through the roof. Always follow the money.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Devereaux on February 25, 2009 at 1:21pm

Welcome back to 1942.

Skirts, boat necks and short shorts are ridiculous.

For one, exposing more skin presents potential health threats including skin cancer with more skin being exposed; short shorts provide less protection from being cleated and from the probable sliding players will do on various kinds of fields; boat necks leave more room for the inevitable fouling hand to grab hold, which can lead to injury; not to mention the bell bottom shirts that leave more room for grabbing hands to tug and pull. In addition, the tighter shirts and shorts are probably less comfortable. The shirts will likely expose a player's stomach when she lifts her arms. Great.

I thought one of the purposes of the league is to show young women that playing sports and not exposing themselves is okay and that we don't have be Brittany Spears in order to get attention.

Some players will likely feel self-conscious now that they have to worry about whether or not their private areas are being exposed to not only the stadium but those watching via television while they stretch. Next thing you know, one of the players will be on the cover of a gossip mag with their crotch area blurred out next to Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan.

We can see how short shorts and skorts have played out in tennis:

Why do we need shirts that show sports bras? Why are we varying so much from the kind of unis the W-League or National Team has?

Granted the photos depict players in longer shorts and without skirts/skorts or boat neck shirts, but at whose discretion are these uniform choices? Do the players get to choose whether they wear long or short shorts?

Ugh, maybe this is over the top, but come on.

P.S. I really don't like the nude color uni of the Gold Pride. They could have done so much more with their color scheme- a nude colored muumuu seems silly.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Reka on February 25, 2009 at 1:53pm

1. Gold Pride (you can't go wrong with the black and gold, but primarily the black)
2. Washington Freedom (both look amazing!)
3. Sky Blue (the sky blue one)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dustin Edwards on February 25, 2009 at 2:11pm

Devereaux said:

Welcome back to 1942.

Skirts, boat necks and short shorts are ridiculous.

For one, exposing more skin presents potential health threats including skin cancer with more skin being exposed; short shorts provide less protection from being cleated and from the probable sliding players will do on various kinds of fields; boat necks leave more room for the inevitable fouling hand to grab hold, which can lead to injury; not to mention the bell bottom shirts that leave more room for grabbing hands to tug and pull. In addition, the tighter shirts and shorts are probably less comfortable. The shirts will likely expose a player's stomach when she lifts her arms. Great.

I thought one of the purposes of the league is to show young women that playing sports and not exposing themselves is okay and that we don't have be Brittany Spears in order to get attention.

Some players will likely feel self-conscious now that they have to worry about whether or not their private areas are being exposed to not only the stadium but those watching via television while they stretch. Next thing you know, one of the players will be on the cover of a gossip mag with their crotch area blurred out next to Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan.

We can see how short shorts and skorts have played out in tennis:

Why do we need shirts that show sports bras? Why are we varying so much from the kind of unis the W-League or National Team has?

Granted the photos depict players in longer shorts and without skirts/skorts or boat neck shirts, but at whose discretion are these uniform choices? Do the players get to choose whether they wear long or short shorts?

Ugh, maybe this is over the top, but come on.

P.S. I really don't like the nude color uni of the Gold Pride. They could have done so much more with their color scheme- a nude colored muumuu seems silly.

Please take time to read the other comments before making yours. The "Wrap" is optional, because of it's effect it might have on playing the ball most if not all players will choose to do without. I don't see what the big deal is with a "Wrap" anyway. It's not remotely comparable to a skirt and I don't think it insults these girls or Womens Soccer in the least. What does reflect negatively on Womens Soccer is when a professional league FOLDS. We're getting a second chance thankfully so instead of being negative I think we should be thankful and supportive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by miri on February 25, 2009 at 2:20pm

Duh, WASHINGTON FREEDOM's kit is the best... :)


And why is that Christian guy there???

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Devereaux on February 25, 2009 at 3:07pm

I have read the other comments and I understand the "wrap" is being called an accessory and that many of the athletes will either refuse to wear them or will choose not to (the short shorts or scoop neck shirts I'm not sure if they'll have a choice to wear).

I agree with many of the former replies about the fact that the uniforms could have been so much more- with stripes or different designs other than solid colors because in the end, you are right- we are getting a second chance at a league and we shouldn't ruin it by making athletes wear uniforms that hinder their play or send the wrong message. Instead, why not follow the lead of some of the other professional teams and use the stripes or other traditional soccer styles.

Because we are getting a second chance at having a league does not mean the fans having to like or agree with every decision the league makes. The point of an open forum is to promote ideas and discussion (like this one) where fans can comment about their teams and thus promote pride and attachment to the league. This is why I posted my feeling about the uniforms.

Because I don't like some of the uniforms doesn't mean I'm not thankful and supportive. It's sad that women/people are expected to bite their tongues when something gets under their skin so we can appear thankful for the opportunity we are finally getting.

We shouldn't have to turn the other cheek at every mistake the league makes just because we are getting a second chance.

Besides, it's just my opinion. And, thankfully, it appears that some of the teams did choose more traditional style uniforms.

At the end of the day our support and thankfulness will be shown through ticket and merchandise sales- not by keeping our opinions to ourselves.


Dustin Edwards said:
Please take time to read the other comments before making yours. The "Wrap" is optional, because of it's effect it might have on playing the ball most if not all players will choose to do without. I don't see what the big deal is with a "Wrap" anyway. It's not remotely comparable to a skirt and I don't think it insults these girls or Womens Soccer in the least. What does reflect negatively on Womens Soccer is when a professional league FOLDS. We're getting a second chance thankfully so instead of being negative I think we should be thankful and supportive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Morgan on February 25, 2009 at 3:19pm

The orange for Sky Blue is AWESOME!!!! Also thank god the skirts are only a fashion show.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Katie on February 25, 2009 at 3:22pm

Glad to hear the skirts are not going to be worn for games. Lets just be happy that womens soccer is back , who cares what the uniforms look like as long as their not in skirts and they get to play the game....lets cheer them on!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jessica E. Guillen on February 25, 2009 at 4:52pm

I like the sol uniform the best. I was waiting to be really impressed but what can you do. th skirt comes off but still its pretty lame if you ask me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by amers on February 25, 2009 at 6:18pm

skyblue away jersey is orange. as a new yorker it goes with the theme of the team jerseys except for the nfl team new york jets. we have blue,red,white in them. skyblue colors are the same as the new york mets.

as with the rest of you can they make the bottoms like shorts,because right now they look like hooters bottoms. the tops are fine with me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Charlotte on February 25, 2009 at 7:13pm

I am a fan of all of the uniforms, but I do have two favorites. The first one is Chicago because they have created a unique design that represents the city. My second favorite is Washington because I love the red jersey and the Freedom are my team!

I think all of the uniforms are refreshingly simple and have a classic style. I do wish that the other teams had put some more unique touches to the uniforms like Chicago, but at the same time the teams have all been busy getting ready for the season. They have had to plan for the draft, negotiate contracts, prepare for pre-season games, etc. There is a lot of necessary preparation for the season, so I understand that making the uniforms unique might not be the highest priority. I am sure once the season gets underway some teams might go back to the design and possibly change it for next year, but for now I think less is more.

Personally I am really glad that the uniforms don't look like the first MLS uniforms:

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shannon Nicole;; on February 25, 2009 at 7:15pm

I don't really like the uniform Chalupny is wearing.
But Hope's will do.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last