The introduction of new baseball uniforms for the 2024 season was intended to be a fresh start, but it has quickly devolved into a major league headache. Players and fans alike have voiced significant concerns, focusing primarily on one unexpected and unflattering feature: the uniforms are see-through. This issue has ignited a firestorm of criticism, raising questions about quality, design, and who is ultimately to blame.
Veteran players were immediately wary of changes to their attire. As Andrew Miller, a respected former All-Star pitcher, noted before the season began, “Players are always a little reluctant to change. Anything new that has to be tinkered with is always going to be a challenge.” His words proved prescient as the challenges emerged not from minor adjustments, but from fundamental issues with the uniform fabric itself.
While Nike spearheaded the uniform redesign and Major League Baseball gave its stamp of approval, much of the public backlash has landed squarely on the shoulders of Fanatics. This is despite the fact that the same factory has been manufacturing MLB uniforms since the early 2000s, and prior to this year, issues of this nature were unreported. Michael Rubin, the founder of Fanatics, defended his company at a recent sports analytics conference at M.I.T., stating, “We’re purely doing exactly as we’ve been told, and we’ve been told we’re doing everything exactly right.” He acknowledged the disproportionate criticism directed at Fanatics, adding, “So that’s not fun.”
Fanatics’ prominent role in sports merchandise makes them an easy target for discontent. The company’s dominance extends beyond MLB, as they manufacture and sell on-field apparel and licensed gear for most major professional sports leagues in the United States. This near-monopoly has made Fanatics the subject of multiple lawsuits alleging anti-competitive practices and inflated prices for sports memorabilia. Indeed, the new MLB jerseys, designed by Nike and manufactured and sold by Fanatics, come with a hefty price tag. A standard 2024 jersey retails for around $175, with premium editions pushing close to $400. Similar pricing structures are in place for Nike/Fanatics replica jerseys in the NFL and NBA, contributing to ongoing concerns about accessibility and value for fans.
Matt Powell, a seasoned sports retail analyst at BCE Consulting, believes the core issue isn’t necessarily the uniform’s construction, but rather the botched communication surrounding its launch. “They did a poor job of selling it,” Powell explained. “When players came into spring training, they suddenly got a different jersey than they were used to, and nobody explained its benefits, why the changes were made or what work they did to develop the product. If Nike had done a better job of communicating the changes, this would not have become a flashpoint.” The lack of transparency in the rollout mirrors the transparency of the uniforms themselves, creating a perfect storm of negative perception.
This uniform fiasco underscores a broader shift in sportswear towards prioritizing performance, sometimes at the expense of traditional aesthetics and perceived quality. MLB isn’t alone in facing see-through apparel scandals. In 2013, Lululemon, a popular yoga apparel brand, faced a class-action lawsuit and significant stock decline after recalling sheer black yoga pants. This incident highlights that the pursuit of lighter, more performance-oriented fabrics can sometimes compromise opacity and lead to embarrassing and brand-damaging situations. The “Baseball See-through Uniforms” controversy serves as a potent reminder that functionality must be balanced with wearability and fan expectations, and that clear communication is crucial when introducing significant changes, especially to something as iconic and visible as team uniforms.
