“Players are always a little reluctant to change,” commented Andrew Miller, a former All-Star pitcher who retired in 2021, highlighting a common sentiment in baseball. This resistance to change is now at the forefront of a significant controversy: the new Major League Baseball (MLB) uniforms, specifically the issue of Baseball See Through Uniform concerns. While Nike redesigned the uniforms and MLB gave the green light, the overwhelming blame from baseball fans has landed squarely on Fanatics. This is despite the fact that the uniforms have been produced in the same factory since the early 2000s without prior issues.
Michael Rubin, Fanatics founder, defended the company at a sports analytics conference at M.I.T. this month, stating, “We’re purely doing exactly as we’ve been told, and we’ve been told we’re doing everything exactly right.” He emphasized that Fanatics is merely executing the designs and instructions provided, yet they are absorbing the brunt of the criticism for the perceived uniform failures. “So that’s not fun,” he added, reflecting on the unfair targeting of his company.
Fanatics has become an easy target due to its dominant position in the sports merchandise industry. The company manufactures and sells on-field apparel and licensed gear for most major professional sports leagues in the U.S. This widespread reach has made them a lightning rod for criticism, and they have faced multiple lawsuits alleging monopolistic practices in sports memorabilia. The MLB gear, designed by Nike and manufactured by Fanatics, also comes with a hefty price tag. A standard 2024 jersey retails for around $175, with some elite editions nearing $400. Similar high prices are seen for Nike/Fanatics replica jerseys across the NFL and NBA.
However, according to Matt Powell, a senior adviser at BCE Consulting with over two decades of experience in sports retail, the core issue with the MLB uniforms this season is not manufacturing, but marketing. “They did a poor job of selling it,” Powell stated. He argues that the introduction of the redesigned jerseys during spring training caught players off guard. Crucially, Nike failed to adequately communicate the benefits, reasons for changes, or the development process behind the new uniforms. Powell suggests, “If Nike had done a better job of communicating the changes, this would not have become a flashpoint.” This lack of communication exacerbated the negative reaction to the baseball see through uniform concerns and other design changes.
The uniform issue also reflects a broader trend in sportswear: a shift towards prioritizing performance over aesthetics and traditional quality. The focus on lightweight, performance-enhancing materials may have inadvertently led to the baseball see through uniform problem. This isn’t an isolated incident within the sportswear industry. In 2013, Lululemon faced a class-action lawsuit and a stock price drop after recalling sheer black yoga pants, demonstrating that Nike is not alone in encountering “see-through-pants scandals.” This historical context underscores that the current MLB uniform controversy is symptomatic of wider industry pressures and design choices, beyond just manufacturing execution by Fanatics.
