clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The Hoddle of Coffee: Tottenham Hotspur news and links for Friday, May 29

New, comments

World Cup logo opinions

Tottenham Hotspur Training Session Photo by Tottenham Hotspur FC/Tottenham Hotspur FC via Getty Images

Hi, everyone!

I suppose I’m going to keep updating you on noteworthy kits, so here’s one from Adidas for Arsenal.

Ramble of the Day

I like to get design opinions from my younger sister for a lot of reasons, mainly that she works at a creative agency and even before that had a design background. Her opinions always reflect that, making her commentary specifically cutting and inherently interesting. I figured a fun thing to do for today’s Hoddle would be to rank the women’s World Cup logos, but instead of sharing my opinions, they’re all hers in a guest ramble of sorts.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

FIFA

1991: “It looks like AOL or Bic, and not in a good way. It took me a really long time to realize it was a woman. It looks super generic, even with the two globes in the back, [which are] specific to FIFA. There’s no information. Zero. I get nothing from it.” Grade: C-

FIFA

1995: “Good that they have info in it. I like the colors. The font is boring. It’s like the most generic font. It doesn’t feel exciting. I understand why the soccer ball is there, but it feels random and unnecessary but if you take it out, it feels like a weird women’s hair logo. Also don’t think it would really stand out on a jersey as a patch.” Grade: C-

FIFA

1999: “It looks like a children’s album cover, but it also looks like podcast cover art [from] someone trying to be throwback-y but failed. Did they even try to design anything? The colors do not work together, but it’s more pleasing to the eye [than the older ones] because it’s less cringeworthy.” Grade: C

FIFA

2003: “Looks more Russia than USA, probably has to do with the font choice. I just despise that font. I like that they included the World Cup trophy into the design, but it’s a cop out design. They’re trying to put in some effort but they’re still not giving a lot of effort. I know some of these are representative of their time, it still feels really low effort for their time.” Grade: C

FIFA

2007: “I hate the little FIFA corner, but understand that might’ve been a phase. I like the different take on the trophy. The font is offensive and seems a little stereotypical. Technically, they have the trophy design on there twice, which is unnecessary because they are two different interpretations. I prefer the main interpretation because that’s more part of the logo.” Grade: B-

FIFA

2011: “I love the Germany stadium thing. It’s more fun than anything else. Still hate the border. I hate the font. I do think the design works overall with the border but it feels really corporate and less unique to Germany than China’s did.” Grade: B-

FIFA

2015: “This has the most design. I love it. It’s not so soccer focused and more country focused. The colors are very vibrant. I feel like it’s very true to the country that’s hosting. You can immediately relate it to Canada without reading it.” Grade: A-

FIFA

2019: “Oh, I love it! The ball color os kind of random but the stripes are great and remind me of France. The font is the least generic and it actually works. It feels very positive, vibrant. It feels exciting. This one isn’t as country specific but it works because it’s more minimalistic — it’s just the trophy. It just gets you hyped, and that’s because of the color choices.” Grade: A

tl;dr: My sister offers opinion on the women’s World Cup logos, and the more recent ones are much better than the earlier ones.

Links of the Day

Coronavirus:

Manchester City hired Gareth Taylor as he new manager of the women’s team.

Today’s longer read: Matthew Spiro interviews France World Cup winner Lilian Thuram on understanding racism and how discrimination impacted his life at different points in an excerpt of his book, Sacré Bleu that was published by The Guardian