Let's hope Liverpool's Adidas kit deal is not another example of stagnant culture
To much fanfare, it has been reported that Liverpool will be reuniting with Adidas in a £900million partnership that will see the German sportswear giants manufacturing all of the club's kits from the start of the 2025/26 season.
Immediately, social media was aflame with anticipation of what the lucrative link-up will bring. Liverpool and Adidas have a rich history of collaboration of course. All you need to do is take a look at the kits from their first partnership, which spanned every season from 1985/86 to 1995/96 (provided by the brilliant Museum of Jerseys).
Yet, instead of excitement about the unknown future, there is a feeling of stagnation. Already, before the partnership even started, these iconic Adidas kits have been imitated by other suppliers in recent seasons.
The 2017/18 New Balance-designed away kit was a reboot of the adventurous green-and-white quartered away shirt of 1995. Last season’s away kit followed suit, albeit with a ‘digital’ effect reminiscent of a late-90s sci-fi flick that comes on TV after Match of the Day.
Read more: Liverpool BLAME Nike for kit furore
The 2018/19 third kit replicated the grey Candy-sponsored outfit from 1989/90, complete with a matching pattern. All of these imitations leave Adidas with little ground that hasn’t been recently trodden or, importantly, that they wouldn’t have trodden regardless.
You only have to look around the leagues to see that ‘homage’ kits are everywhere. Newcastle United’s Adidas-created away kit this season harks back to their iconic red and blue hoops of 1995/96, whilst the Saudi-flag-coloured third kit features their badge from the 1970s.
Manchester City played West Ham United in their 1998/99 inspired neon yellow stripes, reminiscent of their stint in the Second Division and Oasis’s disappointing third album.Bournemouth, meanwhile, are paying homage to the kit they wore when they were promoted to the Premier League for the first time 10 years ago.
The issue here stems in what is being built culturally. Recalling the history and legacy of your football club could never be a bad thing, but the problem is that it isn’t being done to preserve history - it’s being done to make money.
‘Retro’ has been ‘in’ for a few years now, with classic football shirts becoming a statement of fashion as much as they are a statement of support. As a result, the entire football industry is all-too-eager to capitalise on this.But the worry goes to what comes after - in the constant rehashing of kits that were popular 30 years ago, you create a void in kits that are popular now and, more importantly, kits that will be popular in the subsequent three decades.
It’s not just in football either - our entire entertainment industry is based on reviving old products because familiarity reliably makes money for these billion-dollar companies.
It is easier to get Jurassic Park 5 made than it would be to make Jurassic Park. The five highest-grossing films of 2024 are all sequels or additions to a franchise - Inside Out 2, Deadpool & Wolverine, Despicable Me 4, Dune: Part Two, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.In fact, according to IMDb, the highest-grossing film of the 2020s that isn’t a sequel or part of a franchise ranks ninth (it’s Oppenheimer, and even that had to be taken on a mass-cultural ride with the Barbie franchise).
The recent furore over Oasis's upcoming reunion furthers this claim. Millions of people - myself included - spent hours of their lives and a fortune from their bank to experience something that hasn't existed since 2009 and hasn't been good since 1994.
Taylor Swift's Eras Tour - something literally spurring boosts in local economies - mirrors this.
By marketing the different 'eras' of herself, she promises the audience the safety of experiencing something that hasn't existed for 15 years. There is no dare or innovation in a culture like this.
Read more: Did Taylor Swift pay for Chiesa's transfer to Liverpool?
The football industry’s problem doesn’t end with kits either. The revamped Champions League format is the perfect example of minimising risk whilst maximising what is known to be profitable. Its European Super League-lite system means that, out of the 32 teams qualified, 24 are guaranteed to be playing a high-stakes two-legged knockout game in the New Year. No longer can Manchester United lose a game to Copenhagen, finish bottom of their group and be out of Europe entirely. No longer will Barcelona be relegated to Europa League anonymity.
The system also means that teams in Pot One of the draw (the biggest names, the league winners) play two others in the group stage. No longer are the best teams in Europe reserved for elite Champions League semi-finals; no, now they play each other on a dreary Tuesday in October. And it works, too - Liverpool versus Real Madrid at Anfield is by far the most anticipated game of the entire group stage.
Read more: Analysing Liverpool's Champions League draw
All of these issues are indicative of a stagnant culture. The films that get made are Alien 5 and not Alien. Who the big teams are has already been decided, and so they must play each other over and over - no new big teams can be made. And the kits that our favourite teams play in must remind us of a past that some of us didn’t even see the first time around.
We can only hope Adidas take the bold, innovative risks that they did in their first link-up with Liverpool. After all, this is the same company that made West Germany’s 1988-90 shirt and the Netherlands’ 1988 pattern. Their back catalogue contains some of the best shirt designs to ever grace a football pitch. It would be nice to feel like history is being made and not replayed.
Related News
Is Ryan Gravenberch the long-term Liverpool heir to Fabinho?
