Ben McAleer
Chelsea and PSG will have to continue to adhere to a specific FIFA kit ban for their respective shirts ahead of the 2025 Club World Cup Final.
Chelsea progressed to the 2025 showpiece as a Joao Pedro brace saw them defeat Brazilian side Fluminense in rather formulaic affair.
Paris Saint-Germain then followed that up with a resounding 4-0 win over footballing heavyweight Real Madrid. Goals from Fabian Ruiz, Ousmane Dembele and Goncalo Ramos saw the European champions ease in to the final to set up a Paris vs London clash.
However, sponsors will be continued to be disappointed to see that neither Club World Cup finalist will sport their logo on the sleeves of their respective shirts. And it is not the only ban FIFA has ever dished out when it comes to kits; some have been completely wiped from the face of the professional realm.
Earlier in the year, FIFA outlined that they will not be allowing sponsors on both sleeves, with the area saved for logos of the football’s governing body.
Advert
In regards to other equipment regulations, Article 30.1 stated: “FIFA will supply a sufficient number of players’ sleeve badges with the official competition logo of the Competition, which shall be affixed on the right-hand sleeve of each shirt. A different FIFA campaign logo may be affixed on the left-hand sleeve. FIFA will communicate to the participating clubs the instructions for use of the players’ sleeve badges.”
The right sleeve of each shirt must feature the official competition logo as provided by FIFA while the left sleeve may feature a different FIFA campaign logo, which is yet to be determined.
Fans will have spotted that Chelsea’s left sleeve sponsor is Live Nation, while Visit Rwanda adorns PSG’s kit on the same side.
It’s not the first time that football kits have fallen foul by FIFA guidelines, with a number of kits banned or not even making it to manufacturing in recent years for one reason or another.
Advert
Cameroon’s famous vest kit was banned from the 2002 World Cup, despite their Africa Cup of Nations success earlier that year.
“They’re not shirts, they’re vests,” FIFA spokesperson Keith Cooper on the decision to bar the now iconic ensemble.
Two years later, the Indomitable Lions made headlines again as Puma produced the now infamous onesie kit to wear during the 2004 Africa Cup of Nations, a decision that saw FIFA hand them a €154,000 fine and a six-point penalty for the World Cup 2006 qualifying group.
Advert
The proposed punishment was withdrawn, however, after Puma threatened legal action against the federation.
Nike, meanwhile, landed themselves in hot water with Barcelona ahead of the 2020/21 La Liga season to produce a shirt that closely resembled fierce rivals Real Madrid more than it did the Bluagrana.
China’s 2018 shirt was pulled shortly before hitting the shelves following government intervention, with no confirmation as to why it was blocked from being sold.
Back in 1992, however, Fiorentina caused a massive fumble with their 1992/93 away shirt. The shirt featured Fiorentina’s famous purple with a pattern on a white background in a number that seemed harmless enough.
Advert
Upon closer inspection, it looked as though a Swastika had been embedded within the design, which took until December that season to be noticed by fans according to the Guardian.
“Fiorentina and the manufacturers, Lotto, would like to underline that the optical [swastika] effect is purely a matter of chance,” a statement released by the club at the time said.
Most recently, Belgium had to make changes to their away shirt ahead of the 2022 World Cup, and were unable to wear their pre-match shirt as it was deemed “too colourful” by FIFA.
The away shirt, meanwhile, was set to have the world ‘LOVE’ embroidered on the collar, which had to be removed following FIFA intervention.