It’s a massive own goal. The FA should have told Nike where to go

FOR Nike, it couldn’t have gone much better. All publicity is precious and it’s even better when it’s free. All eyes are on their new England kit and it’s only been on the shelves a couple of days.

For the FA, it’s more complicated. A gimmick presumably put forward by a blue- sky-thinking executive from Nike’s HQ on America’s west coast has turned into the kind of own goal Gareth Southgate and his players will be hoping to avoid when they get to Germany for Euro 2024 in three months’ time. As tournament lead-ups go, this one has got off to a ropy start.

We know what tournament kits are. They are a means to make money. Have a look at the old kit. Tweak it. Fiddle with it. Put a new price tag on it. Sell it. On to the next one. It’s a cold, calculated exercise e dressed up in the emotion and nd hyperbole that always accompanies the approach of a summer of international football.

The big sportswear - manufacturers, and the national associations with whom they have enormous contracts, take us for fools and, on the whole, we are happy to play along.

This time, however, - the FA have ve allowed themselves s to be dragged out of step with some of their public and it feels like a mistake.

Whether or not ot you are fundamentally offended ff ddb by Nike’s Nik ’ decision to bastardise the cross of St George on the collar of England’s tournament kit (I am not particularly), it’s hard to look at this development and not wonder why on earth they even took the risk.

The explanation — wrapped up in marketing speak and jargon — is arguably as dismal as the act itself. ‘A playful update to the flag of St George… to unite and inspire,’ is the way it has been presented on the blurb accompanying the kit launch.

Subsequent to that, it has been explained that the pink and two shades of blue (below) are there as a nod to the training kit worn by Sir Alf Ramsey and his triumphant players during the 1966 World Cup.

Take a look at those lovely old photographs of Sir Alf and the squad from 58 years ago and you will quickly realise that doesn’t make any sense. The tracksuits are blue, with red and white trim. Red, white and blue. We may have seen that on another flag with which we are all familiar. Yesterday Yesterd the FA were standing resolutely resolu behind their thei decision and an understandably sta so. There is nothing they can do about it now. Southgate will doubtless not appreciate the noise that will accompany tomorrow’s tomo friendly friend against Brazil at a Wembley. The England Eng manager ager will hold ho a press conference tonight toni at the team’s base in north London and can now expect to spend much of it talking about things other than football. One of Southgate’s most significant achievements while in charge of the team has been to reconnect the England players with the public. Results have certainly oiled the wheels of that process but it has been about more than that.

To a degree, England supporters now feel they have a team they can like and relate to. This summer in Germany, those players will wear a shirt embroidered with a flag that looks different from all of those hanging from the stands in Gelsenkirchen, Cologne and Frankfurt. It’s hard to see the logic.

Speaking eloquently on talkSPORT yesterday, the former FA managing director Adrian Bevington explained how the kit manufacturers often look to push the boundaries at this time of year. ‘There is always an issue with the kit launch,’ Bevington said.

Two worlds collide during the process, for sure. Nike’s commercial instincts pushing against the priorities of a 160-year sporting body who are supposed to carry the best interests of every footballer, supporter and administrator at their heart. It’s not difficult to imagine the conflict.

Ultimately, however, this is the FA’s team, the FA’s kit, the FA’s responsibility. There was always the option to say ‘No’.

NIKE, for their part, have been here before with England. It was only last year that they decided not to produce a replica goalkeeper shirt ahead of England’s participation in the Women’s World Cup. Quite simply, they didn’t think it would make them any money.

So we have long known on which side of the equation they sit. It’s the side that tells them it’s Ok to price the ‘Dri-FIT Advantage’ (no, me neither) version of the new England shirt at £ 124.99 for adults and £ 119.99 for kids. Shorts (£33) and socks (£18) are extra.

It’s the side that makes them think it’s fine to charge another £18 for a name and a number to be stuck on the back.

None of that is any surprise. It has long been that way. We may have expected some smarter thinking from the FA, however. In short, it’s never the best idea to mess around with things that don’t belong to you.

And with that in mind, what is a ‘playful update’ to a flag anyway? Is a flag not just a flag?

Would Nike have tried this with the American Stars and Stripes? Fewer stars, perhaps? Maybe just lose Alaska and Texas.

More pertinently, would they have taken a paintbrush to their own special ‘swoosh’ that sits at the centre of all they do and sell?

It seems unlikely they would mess with their own legacy symbol and downright odd they have been allowed to interfere with one of ours.