JAQ Article

I'm absolutely all for bringing on and including the women's team. JAQ has done wonders with it. However there is no inclusivity problem with the men wearing white shorts and the women dark. I've yet to see anyone who thinks there is.

 

I may not explain things well but if we are not an inclusive and diverse club and willing to change as thoughts and understandings change within society then that is what I meant by being in the dark ages not whether we wear red shorts or not.

 

I completely agree with that, I just don't think that changing our shorts to red demonstrates that we are diverse or inclusive at all. Especially when the away kit for the same reason has chuffing white (practically) shorts and so did last years

 

You're missing the point. I suspect purposefully. The shirts aren't the same. So why do the shorts have to be the same? Why do you believe the shorts being the same makes the club more inclusive but the shirts being different is fine?

I'm going to cut to the chase here, the argument is nonsense. Pure nonsense. The principal part of the kit is the shirt, that's the biggest identifier. If the shirts are different, then having the same shorts is meaningless. I'm not putting forward a radical argument here, everyone would agree with this. If the shirts are different. the two teams are clearly not playing in the same kit. So this 'inclusivity' argument is bunkum.

It's not your fault, JAQ started it. She knows she's talking rubbish too. The fact of the matter is, the designer she likes who designed our kit, I'm not using his name because it's ridiculous, wanted red shorts. That's why they're red. That is the only reason they're red. And JAQ gave this nonsense interview because she didn't want to admit that it's some bloke in New York that is choosing the colour of our kit.

 

I do agree but some will believe that if the men's team wear a different kit to the womens then this is possibly sending out messages that one is more important or better than the other. Same kit same message.
That's how I understand it any way

 

That's the clinching argument in my opinion. The change to red shorts is about fads and fashion experiments and nothing more.

 

But they aren't the same

 

But it isn't the same kit is it? It's the same shorts but a different shirt? So not the same kit?

 

And whilst we're on about treating both teams equally, why does JAQ only sponsor the women's team, why not both, that would surely give her message more publicity.

 

It's nonsense to a lot of white middle aged men of which I certainly sit in that category but to a lot of people it's not.
Whatever differences between the kits that's not really the point, the change of shorts colour has got a lot of people talking about a subject D&I that needs more exposure. Clever lass is JAQ.

 

I wouldn’t go as far as saying it erodes our history or worries me much I just think the kits look awful & I’d rather us keep our traditional home colours.

 

Has it? It's quite a stretch to see men wearing white shorts and women red, as a diversity and inclusion issue. Most folk just think it's a crap kit and haven't heard any justification of why, especially when the women will wear whitish shorts on the away kit anyway.

 

‘The change of shorts colour has got a lot of people talking about the subject’.

This isn’t some master-stroke in marketing mate it’s an intention disruption of our culture and identity.

A lot of people talking about it, the people talking about it are Barnsley fans who would talk about the kit anyway

 

Let’s be honest about this as well.

Even if JAQ’s reasoning is true which I don’t think it is (for the same reasons as Jay), there’s no way decisions for the men’s teams should be influenced by a women’s team that barely anyone cares about. It’s ridiculous.

 

And "Red Army".

 

I think most women footballers would love to sign for Man City. Brilliant facilities, fully professional playing and coaching outfit, much better wages than other clubs in England and most of Europe, a massive identity within the club structure and treated as much with respect as the men’s team. A huge cultural shift.

They wear different colour shorts - and the allowance to do so was done in a message of inclusion and solidarity to the women’s game by getting rid of white shorts. There was never a discussion on getting rid of them for the men’s team.

There didn’t need to be.

Suggesting the men’s team will wear red shorts in some kind of inclusivity move is absolute bunkum. It isn’t the reason at all - the suggestion is an after the event attempt to gaslight.

The England women’s team have had completely different kits too. I don’t recall Jordan Pickford having the opportunity to wear the very popular kit Mary Earps wore in the last tournament.

The women’s game is growing. I’m proud our club are doing what they are for women and girls. I’m a dad of two girls.

But the argument about shorts is just a bit silly. It didn’t need to be done, and it’s just an excuse to link it to the women’s team.

 

I think your assertion that the shirts are different is nonsense. It's the same shirt. Different sponsor on it, but it's the same shirt. It just is.

 

Well she's certainly got you fooled.

The design aesthetic for this season's kit is one colour, matching top and bottoms. The pink kit has a pink shirt, pink shorts and pink socks. The grey kit has a grey shirt, grey shorts and grey socks. There's no way the designer was going ruin the collection with white shorts for the home kit. That's the only reason they're red.

Look at his 2024 collection: matching top and bottoms across the range. It's that simple, there's no inclusivity in it.

https://kidsuper.com/

 

Does that mean my red Adidas T-Shirt is the same as my red Nike T-shirt. They're both red T-shirts, it's just the writing on the front that's different.

 

No, because one is Adidas and one is Nike, and will undoubtedly be actual different t-shirts.

These are the actual same shirts, with a different sponsor. The sponsor is just an addition to the same shirt.