Question Number: 15431

Law 4 - Players Equipment 5/8/2007

RE: Level 3 Adult

Keith Wood of Perth, Western Australi Australia asks...

We all know that outfield players of the same team wear the same coloured shirts, shorts and socks, but I can not find anything anywhere which forces them to do this. Law 4 certainly doesn't state that outfield players of the same team must wear the same colour, and the rules of the local competition don't either. What's to stop members of the same team all wearing different colours ?

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

This question couldn't be comming from a lawyer, could it?

What's to stop players from wearing colours that are different? I think we must return to the original uniform worn by school boys in 19th century England, caps! One colour for the home side and one for the side playing away. Right, different colour caps. It is evident they could easily tell each other apart, caps and school uniforms [a guess on my part]. Can you imagine competing in blazer, shirt and tie, woollen trousers and stockings on a warm day. I'd be willing to bet there where short cuts taken by some of the lads. But still they were easily identified by their caps... See where this is going.

At some time it became necessary for a school to provide kit for their players so they could identify each other, especially after caps were no longer used. Not only must they provide something to be worn but in the event of the other side having the same general colour I'd be willing to bet they had a change strip as well.

Notice I have cleverly avoided the one word not mentioned in Law 4 nor your question. The players kit is also known as a -uniform-. The word uniform is a noun meaning:

A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.

Right, we have historical precedent dressing like players in a cap of a particular colour and other clothing, perhaps a school uniform. Logic forces us to believe the clothing changed from a costly school uniform into something less costly and, perhaps, provided by the school.

That's enough for this referee to be all pissy about one colour shirt and close enough shorts and stockings. Most competitive leagues around America, Austria, Bermuda, France and Western Australia [first hand knowledge for all] require matching trousers, shirts and stockings and that's enough for this referee to get all pissy about a matching kit for each player.

Hope that offers a logical sequence of thoughts to arrive at a conclusion. Of course I could have just as easily have said: Because, and let it go at that.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

It's the same place in the Laws where we find that shirts must be tucked in. Or where we find that when a player is sent off he cannot be substituted for. In other words, it's one of those things that the compilers of the Laws found so obvious that "everyone knows", they didn't feel the need to put it in the text. How did your question start? - "We all know ..."

For countries like the US where not "everyone knows", there are documents like the USSF "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game", found at http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/AdvicetoRef06.pdf And sure enough, in section 4.1 we find, "It is implicit in the Law that each side wear a distinctly colored jersey, that shorts and socks be uniform for each team, and that the uniforms be distinguishable from the uniforms worn by the other team."

I'm sure the Australian FA (or is it SA this year?) agrees with the principle that uniforms are, uniform.