Original and fluorescent, it hits all the third shirt criteria. The 2016/17 third shirt was a strong attempt, a stealthy black with neon yellow. It’s also a third kit that was probably Puma’s best attempt. Of course, there’s little Puma can do about Arsenal on the pitch, but its undeniable that football shirts are cemented in history, or resigned to the bin, depending on the success of their wearers. Henry scored at the Bernabeu in Nike’s yellow and grey, I’m pretty sure we lost at Selhurst Park in Puma’s rendition. Arsenal won the league in gold wearing Nike, and failed to stay in title race wearing Puma. Both however, don’t live up to their American design inspiration – largely due to a lack of memorable moments in either. In fairness, that gold kit was pretty decent and the yellow and grey a fine, admittedly mediocre, attempt.

Once going gold, once yellow and grey and also navy and sky blue. Nike also produced plenty more iconic designs featuring the classic yellow and blue combo.Ĭlearly, on three occasions Puma opted for their interpretations of Nike’s Arsenal away kits. It’s out-shined by the simplicity of Arsenal’s 1970/71 cup winning kit, which remains far more iconic. It could’ve been such an iconic shirt, with Arsenal winning the 2015 FA Cup in the kit and half of Wembley clad in yellow. This time by choosing red, over blue, detailing for sponsors and trims. Even then, they (again) ruined what would be a fantastic kit. Only once did Puma go for Arsenal’s traditional yellow and blue away kit. The best example of this is the 2016/17 kit, a Cup Winning shirt, with a smart navy trim but ripped of iconic territory because of that nasty stripe down the middle. It shocks me they didn’t just go simple one season and make a plain red shirt with white sleeves, instead consistently opting for tweaks and details that prevented an iconic design prevailing. In defence of Puma, home kits at Arsenal leave little room for originality. Nabbing ideas from Nike, with shoddy execution, and a painful knack of nearly make a purchase-worthy shirt, Puma failed what was a major opportunity to establish themselves amongst Nike and Adidas. Every season they’ve produced at least one kit to make Gooners raise an eyebrow, and to often to make the stomach turn. Over their five years though, Puma have flopped consistently. The Adidas deal re-establishes Arsenal as a major commercial coup.Īrsenal fans could probably forgive the economics if Puma did a decent job. Arsenal’s new Adidas deal matches Nike’s at Chelsea, a fat £60m a year to plump the coffers – more appetising than Puma. That tasty looking forward figure was soon dwarfed by Manchester United’s £75m a year Adidas deal, making Puma (and Arsenal) seem like part-timers. Overall though, the Puma deal was met with enthusiasm after 20 years of Nike, a tidy looking £30million deal a season seemed positive. Despite this, Nike were still doing a fairly decent job of Arsenal kits in the early 2010s even if the ‘goth’ kit was a bit odd and not of Nike’s funky 1990s standards. Baggy shirts of the 90s particularly are now vintage fashion items, with Arsenal’s bruised banana kit easily setting you back into triple figures.

In general, it’s probably fair to say that football kits have declined in aesthetics (certainly originality) since the 1980s and 1990s. Here I run through why it went so wrong, with a full ranking of every Arsenal kit Puma released. Drab home kits, unconventional away kits and sickly third kits have made Puma’s annual kit releases resemble a horror film.

You’d be hard pressed to find any Gooners that will miss their questionable designs. Something that is objective though, is that Puma have done a pretty awful job of Arsenal’s kits over the last 5 years. Football kits, like any clobber, are highly subjective.

Mint blue pumas