Calling all Manchester City fans: Help with my dissertation on - Fans’ perspectives on MCFC’s Eco-friendly Jerseys and sustainability efforts

malg said:
Done. Mostly negative from me as I find all the sustainability stuff just one huge grift. But hey ho, it's aimed at others and not me.

Question 11 - 'their' not 'there'

From memory anyway....
Click to expand...
Ahh yeah. Thanks, malg. Schoolboy error. Just fixed it.
 
It's a bandwagon like many other things. On the subject of shirt and kit sales changing kits every year and having umpteen different kits demonstrates the real commitment is to sales and profits, sod sustainability. I don't like to sound so cynical but hard to draw any other conclusion?`
 
Last edited:
I have completed this.

I don’t have a great deal of knowledge on this subject however shouldn’t this be targeted at the brands producing the kits rather than individual clubs. I presume City will get a lump sum of money from Puma to produce the kits but presumably do not get money from the shirts sold in sports direct etc.

I would imagine the kit manufacturer will have an idea of how many different types of kits they can make for each club each season and still have the demand for each one to make it profitable for them to produce.

So is it the clubs driving this or the manufacturer or possibly both.

A good example is the Chinese New Year shirts, the players never wear them but they are produced and sold. As far as I am aware this has only been since we started winning things and in turn attracted more fans that celebrate Chinese New Year. So supply and demand will have been weighed up by City or Puma or both.

I believe it will be Puma that drive a lot of this, it takes me back to when goalkeeper kits weren’t as popular as they are today and I could never get the matching socks for my son, when I asked city why this was the case they told me it was because (I think it was Nike at the time) Nike wouldn’t produce them as there wasn’t enough demand to make it economically viable to sell them.

Also, how do you measure the sustainability of the shirts as I am not sure how many get thrown away just because a new kit comes out. A lot of people keep them now as they will probably hope to still fit in them in 20 years and wear them to the games, similar to how people buy the retro shirts now.

A lot of kids will wear their kits pretty much most of their free time in the week playing footy in them, going to parties in them etc. whereas the ‘smart’ jeans, t-shirt and jumper you buy them in case you go anywhere ‘nice’ just gets left in a cupboard or drawer unworn which is surely less sustainable. Similar to the throw away fashion you see with people who buy a dress for a one off night out and never wear it again.

For the last question, I feel you need to go to a game at the Etihad yourself as part of your research as you will see lots of sustainability measures in place, inside and outside the ground. A lot of which have just become part of the match day routine such as reusable pint pots, no disposable sauce sachets, refillable water bottle station outside. If you then look wider at the academy site there are lots of sustainability measures incorporated there which link to the main stadium.

Hope this helps.
 
I forgot to add, when I see the fact shirts are recycled from a load of bottles etc, my immediate thought is, so what, please just make them so they can be sold at a fair price the way they used to be made when they didn’t pull as soon as you put them on and then I am less likely to throw it away.

I am sure 90% of fans don’t buy them for their sweat wicking properties and other technology that they stamp on the label to try and justify the price.

I desperately try not to say anything so as not to ruin the enjoyment of my kids getting a new kit, but them putting their new kit on and then putting goalkeeper gloves on with the Velcro near the shirt is more nerve wrecking than watching an Edghill play off penalty.
 
BungleBear said:
The clubs is releasing at least 8 kits this season, and the players never wear the same shirt twice.

Seems an odd topic, and the opposite of sustainable in the environmental sense, more sustainable in the economic sense.
Click to expand...
Not to mention cutting massive fucking holes in socks because walker did it years ago why don’t they just design a sock with holes in
 
Centur100ns said:
I have completed this.

I don’t have a great deal of knowledge on this subject however shouldn’t this be targeted at the brands producing the kits rather than individual clubs. I presume City will get a lump sum of money from Puma to produce the kits but presumably do not get money from the shirts sold in sports direct etc.

I would imagine the kit manufacturer will have an idea of how many different types of kits they can make for each club each season and still have the demand for each one to make it profitable for them to produce.

So is it the clubs driving this or the manufacturer or possibly both.

A good example is the Chinese New Year shirts, the players never wear them but they are produced and sold. As far as I am aware this has only been since we started winning things and in turn attracted more fans that celebrate Chinese New Year. So supply and demand will have been weighed up by City or Puma or both.

I believe it will be Puma that drive a lot of this, it takes me back to when goalkeeper kits weren’t as popular as they are today and I could never get the matching socks for my son, when I asked city why this was the case they told me it was because (I think it was Nike at the time) Nike wouldn’t produce them as there wasn’t enough demand to make it economically viable to sell them.

Also, how do you measure the sustainability of the shirts as I am not sure how many get thrown away just because a new kit comes out. A lot of people keep them now as they will probably hope to still fit in them in 20 years and wear them to the games, similar to how people buy the retro shirts now.

A lot of kids will wear their kits pretty much most of their free time in the week playing footy in them, going to parties in them etc. whereas the ‘smart’ jeans, t-shirt and jumper you buy them in case you go anywhere ‘nice’ just gets left in a cupboard or drawer unworn which is surely less sustainable. Similar to the throw away fashion you see with people who buy a dress for a one off night out and never wear it again.

For the last question, I feel you need to go to a game at the Etihad yourself as part of your research as you will see lots of sustainability measures in place, inside and outside the ground. A lot of which have just become part of the match day routine such as reusable pint pots, no disposable sauce sachets, refillable water bottle station outside. If you then look wider at the academy site there are lots of sustainability measures incorporated there which link to the main stadium.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response. They touch on some critical points about the relationship between clubs and manufacturers.

My research specifically focuses on the role of strategic partnerships (first research objective), like the one between Manchester City FC and Puma, in driving sustainability initiatives. While Puma, as the manufacturer, undoubtedly plays a significant role in production and design, my study examines how these partnerships influence the club's broader sustainability strategies and how they are communicated to fans. For example, are they helping towards a circular economy, and towards their social sustainability like water conservation? What are the fans' as stakeholders views on these initiatives? It’s not just about the shirts themselves, but about how the club uses these collaborations to meet their Corporate Social Responsibility goals.

The point about the Chinese New Year kit is a good one. Puma and City will of course always prioritise economic sustainability. Its a business at the end of the day. Also, clubs like City may view these as opportunities to engage specific fan groups or expand their brand globally.

Regarding the sustainability of these shirts, PUMA claims they are made out of 100% recycled polyester, which is a start I guess because it will extend its lifecycle. But yeah you're so right about the disposal habits and long-term use being significant factors. While my project doesn’t directly measure these, I’m interested in fans’ perceptions of the sustainability of these initiatives and how they influence purchasing behaviour.

Also, yeah going to a game would be great to see how well they are communicated. However, I am already collecting quite a bit of data set (content analysis of environmental reports, press releases, social media posts and surveys). I don't want to overload myself with data and analysis. But yeah, for further and better research this would be beneficial.

Not sure if I covered all your points there. But I hope you've got a little bit more clarity.
 
Have completed it mate, although I doubt it would have been much help to you .... I'm almost 68 now, and although I used to wear them regularly in my 20s/30s/40s, my interest in wearing replica shirts has long since gone, no matter what they're made of, or what good they do for the environment .... I still continue to watch the team every week though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.