Do older kits, like from the 2000s, really look better or is it just nostalgia? I was looking at old United pictures, and the kits just look better, but maybe it's just nostalgia
>>157330855The players were more sovlful. Nobody had social media. Hence the jerseys are better
Something I love about the older football photo is that there were no colorful boots. I don't know why at some point all the companies decided pink and bright yellow boots would look cool.
>>157331266Kids love bright colors. It's why apps and media now look plastic and have saturated colors
>>157331800Even as a kid I thought they looked faggy.
>>157331800>>157331266this is going to sound weird, but i very vividly remember when juan mata and oscar came out with fluorescent colored boots (i'm a chelseafag), and it was jarring. I love Mata but it was weird, I'm sure it happened elsewhere first but he seemed an unlikely candidate to do thatall the other players still wore black boots, so maybe it stood outin the NBA in my country, everyone always had crazy colored shoes since Jordan, but the NFL had extremely strict rules about shoes you can wear and everyone looked pretty uniformTbh it may make me sound old-fashioned but these guys wearing all different boots make them all seem disjointed and not on the same page, "look at me and my brand"looks extremely non-professional
>>157331266For me it's the Nike Mercurial Vapor 3. These have colors, but they're still more tasteful
>>157330855No, there were a ton of horrible shirts back then where the "designs" were just random awkward-looking shapes slapped all over the place with no thought to them, shit that looked like practice gear but was worn in actual games.
>>157333469
>>157333504
>>157333518That’s kino though
I think there were a lot of ugly kits back them, but they were also unique
>>157336608That 2002 brazil kit was ass. 94 was the kino kit.
