Reebok No Longer Official Shoe

[JamesC]

Anyone know what the deal is with Reebok no longer being the official shoe for MLB Umpires? Do the umpires decide this or is it one of those bidding things where Reebok may have lost the bid to someone else? I just couldn't understand the umpires voting Reebok out over someone else. I know personally, I have worn Reebok and New Balance, and Reebok shoes (plate and base) are quite amazing!

[boyinr]

I believe that I read this on Ump Attire in one of Jim's blog entrys. I have the NB450mk for 4 years and love them.

[JamesC]

I know they're not, I'm just curious why? What happened for this to change? I had the NB450 also and swapped to the Reebok. The Reebok's were lighter, better traction, and all around more comfortable than the NB I had.

[Marcus6]

I know they're not, I'm just curious why? What happened for this to change? I had the NB450 also and swapped to the Reebok. The Reebok's were lighter, better traction, and all around more comfortable than the NB I had.

Why does it matter? Youre playing into their game if youre gonna chase whoever the "official" shoes of the MLB umpires are.

My guess is that the licensing agreement was up 12/31 and New Balance was willing to pay the most. Perhaps somebody with knowledge can say for sure. Since Jim Kirk mentioned they are planning for a new plate shoe in a little bit (Q4 2010 I think???), it makes sense they would want to promote it as much as they can. Being the official shoe of MLB umpires would be a good start.

The main reason I didnt purchase the Reebok Field Magistrate plate shoes when I needed new plate shoes last year was because of the hideous logo. From what I understand, the logo is now removed. Makes them 100x more appealing IMO.

[kylejt]

The logo on the Reeboks is still there, it's just black.

I talked to an MLB umpire about their shoe deal last year, and he told me they got nothing out of it, aside from a few pair of shoes. I told him they were chumps for not getting money AND product. Perhaps they woke up, smelled the coffee, and figured out that being on TV for three hours a game get's their logo in front of millions, and are finally getting paid now.

I like the Reeboks in dry conditions, and the NB when it's sticky or wet. The Reebok soles clog up with mud too easily. Both are solid choices.

It will be interesting to see if the MLB guys get to ditch those awful looking shirts this year.

[Astrosdawg07]

....It will be interesting to see if the MLB guys get to ditch those awful looking shirts this year.

Doubt it with Majestic now marketing these shirts to the general public.

[kylejt]

....It will be interesting to see if the MLB guys get to ditch those awful looking shirts this year.

Doubt it with Majestic now marketing these shirts to the general public.

Hey, maybe of us umpires refuse to buy and wear those ugly frocks, they'll change the design. Those light blue jobs are Gawd awful.

[Astrosdawg07]

....It will be interesting to see if the MLB guys get to ditch those awful looking shirts this year.

Doubt it with Majestic now marketing these shirts to the general public.

Hey, maybe of us umpires refuse to buy and wear those ugly frocks, they'll change the design. Those light blue jobs are Gawd awful.

Agreed! The black is decent at BEST!

[amarillo]

I wonder if the Reeboks with the logo will be on sale soon?

[JaxRolo]

I wonder if the Reeboks with the logo will be on sale soon?

Don't think there are many of those around anymore. May find some odd sizes here and there.

[zm1283]

I wonder if the Reeboks with the logo will be on sale soon?

I wonder if the Reeboks with the logo will be on sale soon?

Don't think there are many of those around anymore. May find some odd sizes here and there.

What are you guys talking about? Reebok still sells the plate and base shoes with the white logo if that's the logo you're talking about.

Reeboks

[zm1283]

I know they're not, I'm just curious why? What happened for this to change? I had the NB450 also and swapped to the Reebok. The Reebok's were lighter, better traction, and all around more comfortable than the NB I had.

Why does it matter? Youre playing into their game if youre gonna chase whoever the "official" shoes of the MLB umpires are.

My guess is that the licensing agreement was up 12/31 and New Balance was willing to pay the most. Perhaps somebody with knowledge can say for sure. Since Jim Kirk mentioned they are planning for a new plate shoe in a little bit (Q4 2010 I think???), it makes sense they would want to promote it as much as they can. Being the official shoe of MLB umpires would be a good start.

The main reason I didnt purchase the Reebok Field Magistrate plate shoes when I needed new plate shoes last year was because of the hideous logo. From what I understand, the logo is now removed. Makes them 100x more appealing IMO.

They still make the plate and base shoes with the white logo and the all black version. I don't know why anyone got the idea that they completely got rid of the logo for good.

[Marcus6]

Wanna bet? The pictures on UA and other websites are not up to date. The MLB logos are gone from the Reebok shoes, per Jim Kirk. This shouldnt be THAT big of a deal but it appears it is. Oh well.

[Thunderheads]

The Reeboks have been coming WITHOUT logos since late June/July time frame. My low plate shoes with the white stripes are LOGO_LESS ...trust me ...I loved it when I opened my Reebok box from Ump-Attire and there wasn't a MLB logo in sight!

[Thunderheads]

I know they're not, I'm just curious why? What happened for this to change? I had the NB450 also and swapped to the Reebok. The Reebok's were lighter, better traction, and all around more comfortable than the NB I had.

.

My guess is that the licensing agreement was up 12/31 and New Balance was willing to pay the most. Perhaps somebody with knowledge can say for sure. Since Jim Kirk mentioned they are planning for a new plate shoe in a little bit (Q4 2010 I think???), it makes sense they would want to promote it as much as they can. Being the official shoe of MLB umpires would be a good start.

Any additional info on the above???

[zm1283]

Oh.....the MLB logo. I thought you guys were talking about the Reebok logo on the side of the shoe.

[Fittske24]

The Reeboks have been coming WITHOUT logos since late June/July time frame. My low plate shoes with the white stripes are LOGO_LESS ...trust me ...I loved it when I opened my Reebok box from Ump-Attire and there wasn't a MLB logo in sight!

Intresting..... can you supply a few pics of the shoes with out the logos. Thanks

[Marcus6]

I know they're not, I'm just curious why? What happened for this to change? I had the NB450 also and swapped to the Reebok. The Reebok's were lighter, better traction, and all around more comfortable than the NB I had.

.

My guess is that the licensing agreement was up 12/31 and New Balance was willing to pay the most. Perhaps somebody with knowledge can say for sure. Since Jim Kirk mentioned they are planning for a new plate shoe in a little bit (Q4 2010 I think???), it makes sense they would want to promote it as much as they can. Being the official shoe of MLB umpires would be a good start.

Any additional info on the above???

No and I must be wrong if the shoes started coming out in the summer without the logo. Perhaps Jim Kirk could chime in and clear this up for us "groupies"

[JimKirk]

No and I must be wrong if the shoes started coming out in the summer without the logo. Perhaps Jim Kirk could chime in and clear this up for us "groupies"

Well, I do know that we have yet to change our logo on the site of the Reebok shoes after we received a shipment in last week. I apologize for that, but we hope to have that resolved by tomorrow.

On the other, I don't believe that shoes started coming without the logo until just now. Reebok only has shoes at the beginning of each year as you get what you order in late summer/early fall with very little fill-in opportunities. In other words, they don't make quantities throughout the year - made a batch with logos on them for the beginning of 2010 and now this is their first batch since then.

Hope that helps.

Jim

[semper_fi_72]

Who cares if the MLB Logo is on Reaboks or anything else for that matter.

I do not buy equipment or anything because it has a logo on it or is the hottest newest item.

I buy things because they work and fill the requirement I have.

Just like I don't buy T-Shirts with collars that won't bacon just because Michael Jordan wears them in commercials. :P

[Thunderheads]

No and I must be wrong if the shoes started coming out in the summer without the logo. Perhaps Jim Kirk could chime in and clear this up for us "groupies"

Well, I do know that we have yet to change our logo on the site of the Reebok shoes after we received a shipment in last week. I apologize for that, but we hope to have that resolved by tomorrow.

On the other, I don't believe that shoes started coming without the logo until just now. Reebok only has shoes at the beginning of each year as you get what you order in late summer/early fall with very little fill-in opportunities. In other words, they don't make quantities throughout the year - made a batch with logos on them for the beginning of 2010 and now this is their first batch since then.

Hope that helps.

Jim

Jim, my July 2010 Reebok plate-lows did not have MLB logos on them. It's kind of an enigma, isn't it ?:P

[Umpire in Chief]

Who cares if the MLB Logo is on Reaboks or anything else for that matter.

I do not buy equipment or anything because it has a logo on it or is the hottest newest item.

I buy things because they work and fill the requirement I have.

Just like I don't buy T-Shirts with collars that won't bacon just because Michael Jordan wears them in commercials.

To add to this I actually perfer no logos.

I do not like logos or advertisements on my uniforms or street clothes.

[JimKirk]

Jim, my July 2010 Reebok plate-lows did not have MLB logos on them. It's kind of an enigma, isn't it ?

Well, I thought I made complete sense until you mentioned that. Any chance you received an old pair from years prior, say one without the less than muted white logo?

If not let's call it an "enigma" and move on with our lives.

BTW-just changed our photos as of today to the no MLB logo'd ones.

[Thunderheads]

Jim, my July 2010 Reebok plate-lows did not have MLB logos on them. It's kind of an enigma, isn't it ?

Well, I thought I made complete sense until you mentioned that. Any chance you received an old pair from years prior, say one without the less than muted white logo?

If not let's call it an "enigma" and move on with our lives.

BTW-just changed our photos as of today to the no MLB logo'd ones.

I promise, it's the 2010 version ;)

[Thunderheads]

Jim, my July 2010 Reebok plate-lows did not have MLB logos on them. It's kind of an enigma, isn't it ?

Well, I thought I made complete sense until you mentioned that. Any chance you received an old pair from years prior, say one without the less than muted white logo?

If not let's call it an "enigma" and move on with our lives.

BTW-just changed our photos as of today to the no MLB logo'd ones.

I promise, it's the 2010 version

On edit, I just realized that I received these in August ....not sure that makes a difference, but ........