This week saw the resolution of a situation that highlights the importance of listening to your stakeholders, in this case professional athletes and their fans. We speak of the great baseball-uniform fiasco, which brings together — unhappily — MLB, the players union, Nike Inc. and Fanatics Inc. You can think of it as the “New Coke” of sports.

For spring training this season, Major League Baseball debuted lighter and thinner Nike-designed uniforms. Alas, players and fans immediately blasted them as having, among other ills, a poor fit, too-small lettering and non–custom-fitted pants. The jerseys were also sheer enough to reveal heavy sweat stains.

In April, the MLB Players Association sent a memo to its members declaring the outfits would be altered. It’s unclear how certain that was, but the league responded by saying it would work with Nike to see about that.

Heavier Fabric

On Monday this week, MLB made it official. It said it would revamp the attire to return to the older designs, including pants customization, increased letter sizes and the heavier fabric. It said it collaborated on the switch — which won’t be fully implemented until the start of the 2026 season — with the union, Nike and manufacturer Fanatics.

The league announced it was also ditching the new Nike-designed, multicolored uniforms for All-Star Games and was returning to the previous practice (stretching back to the 1930s) of having the players wear their regular team attire during the mid-season game.

This was a double-lede story with some outlets emphasizing the regular-season uniforms and some the All-Star garb. Either way, there was jubilation (and relief) throughout the sports land. The New York Times-owned Athletic called it “a total reversal” and “a triumph for public outrage.” Sports Illustrated reported it as “the moment most MLB fans have been waiting for.”

‘Clown Costumes’

“MLB finally got the hint,” wrote Phil Hecken, editor of Uni Watch, a website that covers — you guessed it — sports uniforms. Hecken referred in particular to the All-Star uniforms, which he called “clown costumes.”

Sportico Deputy Editor Eben Novy-Williams called the hated duds (in two senses) “a rare design miss for Nike.” He reported that most of the blame was being placed on that company because it “refused to address the issue as it was taking root in club houses and on social media.” Bad crisis response, especially as the athletes really did turn to their social-media platforms to protest.

“At its core, what has happened here is that Nike was innovating something that didn’t need to be innovated,” the players union said in its April memo, according to an article that month by Novy-Williams. The memo also said the sportswear giant’s response to the controversy was, “Nothing to see here. Players will need to adjust.” Nike doesn’t seem to have commented on the latest announcement.

‘Player Feedback’

In absolving Fanatics (in which the union owns equity), the memo implied that Nike didn’t reach out for player consultation on the designs. “Fanatics recognizes the vital important of soliciting player feedback, obtaining player buy-in and not being afraid to have difficult conversations about jerseys,” the memo said, according to Sportico.

“New Coke,” of course, refers to Coca-Cola’s 1985 reformulation of its ubiquitous soft drink, which made it sweeter. The new formula was met by almost universal derision, causing the company, three months later, to bring back the old recipe as “Coca-Cola Classic.” The company dropped New Coke altogether in 2002. As fount of wisdom Wikipedia puts it, “The story of New Coke remains influential as a cautionary tale against tampering with an established successful brand.”

In other words, listen to your stakeholders.

Image Credit: MLB

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter on crisis communications. Each week we highlight a crisis story in the news or a survey or study with an eye toward the type of best practices and strategies you can put to work each day. Click here to subscribe.