Older fanshop Football Shirts are hard to source and often cost more than modern releases. Many that surface are Replica, unlicensed and lower quality. This guide helps you recognise authentic fanshop shirts from other brands before 2015, judge honest wear, and avoid reissues sold as originals. We use three examples from our archive to anchor the checks: an Erima Ajax 1970s home shirt, an Umbro Manchester United 1998–99 shirt, and a 2004–05 Ajax fanshop shirt. Your priority is proof that the base is authentic for its era. Confirm labels, fabric, crest applications, and period-correct trims, then link them to any photo proof. Keep your documentation with the shirt for future resale.
Paul de Metter, Founder of Walkouts: "An original fanshop shirt of an era gone by might have some wear or a broken zipper, but nothing can beat the fact that it might have been worn in the stadium during that era, experiencing the game when your favourite club won the cup or league."
Era overview: who made what and why that matters
Pre 1990s: Admiral, Le Coq Sportif, Erima, Hummel, Asics, Pony and local suppliers dominated Europe. Think Admiral’s England and Leeds templates, Le Coq’s felt crests for Everton and PSG, and Erima’s Ajax era. Construction was cotton or heavy polyester, single-colour sponsor flock, simple collars, and stitched badges.
1990–2000: Umbro led club supply across the UK and Europe with jacquard patterns and flock sponsors. Kappa ushered in tighter Kombat cuts at the decade’s end. Lotto, Diadora and Reebok produced bold sublimation for Serie A and La Liga.
2000–2010: Kappa’s Kombat series, Lotto’s geometric prints, Diadora’s technical poly, Reebok’s Vector era and early Macron all feature. Fanshop stock varied by club, and name-sets started to standardise by league.
After 2010: Macron, Joma, Le Coq Sportif’s relaunch, Hummel’s heritage returns, and boutique reissues appear. Clubs also released commemorative shirts that can confuse buyers. For each brand and era, anchor on labels, fabric, sponsor material, and crest method.
Lots of brands were experimenting with new features, like adding this pin to an early Ajax Amsterdam fanshop shirt. You won't find that in a replica shirt, so that's a good clue to look for.
What original fanshop shirts look and feel like
Expect age. A 1970s Erima shirt will show cotton softness, slight yellowing at the collar, and a simple woven neck label. An Umbro 1990s shirt should carry correct double-diamond labels, dense flock sponsor, and period stitching. Early 2000s fanshop stock often used heavier poly and thick PU or flock sponsors. Honest wear is normal and supports the narrative: mild fade, minor pilling, hairline cracks in flock, and softened tags. Be wary of pristine fabric with modern tags on a style that should show wear. Replicas from later decades are often shiny, very bright, and smell of new plastics; fonts or crest proportions are off; care labels use contemporary layouts. If the label and fabric do not match the supposed era, walk away.
Below is the Erima 1970's shirt with nr. 8 on it, signed by legendary Ajax winger Sjaak Swart. Those who were there might agree: "I love the smell of cotton in the morning."
Case notes from our archive
Erima Ajax 1970s: look for Erima’s period neck tag, cotton body, stitched Ajax crest and minimalist sponsor era. A light patina is expected after almost 50 years.
Umbro Manchester United 1998–99: microfibre poly with flocked Sharp sponsor, embroidered crest and Umbro diamonds, and no zip on this fanshop variant. Shirt weight should feel substantial.
2004–05 Ajax: early 2000s fanshop fabrics are thicker than modern player spec and often use raised PU for sponsor details. In all three, match namesets and patches to the correct competition where present, and record close-ups of labels and trims into your provenance file.
Below is the original late 90's Manchester United Umbro shirt that featured the Treble win. It misses the zipper, as that easily broke during the ages, but feeling the thickness of the shirt is priceless.
Risks with older and commemorative shirts
Reissues and remakes are the biggest trap. Anniversary releases, museum reproductions, and fashion versions can look convincing in photos. They are not period fanshop stock. Watch for modern care labels, inconsistent country-of-manufacture, bright whites on a shirt that should have mellowed, and sponsors printed in crisp modern PU where flock would be expected. Commemorative name-sets are often wrong: font weight, kerning, and stroke differ from the era. Replica sellers may add a famous player name and claim vintage. Inspect collars, cuffs, and label fonts. If the shirt claims to be match-worn, insist on photo match evidence. Remember that a slightly worn authentic fanshop base beats a cheap Replica every time, but it will usually cost more.
Below is a commemorative Replica shirt of Le Coq Sportif 1986 Argentina shirt. These shirts are priceless when found original and fanshop, so never suspect an autographed one being affordable is not a Replica.
Checklist by brand and what to inspect
Use this brand-led checklist to separate period fanshop shirts from Replica. It is not exhaustive, but it covers the common tells that hold up under scrutiny and protect value. File label and trim photos with your purchase notes and link them to your autograph proof.
| Brand | Dominant era(s) | Original fanshop tells vs Replica |
|---|---|---|
| Umbro | 1990s to early 2000s |
✅ Woven neck labels with correct double-diamond ✅ Dense flock sponsors on many UK clubs ✅ Jacquard patterning in body ✅ Crisp embroidery; period wash tags ✅ Thin print, and wrong collar tape 🟠 Replica often uses shiny poly. |
| Kappa | 1998–2002, 2000s |
✅ Kombat slim cuts with stretch ✅ Omini tape spacing consistent ✅ Heat-applied low-profile crests ✅ Size tags small for era 🟠 Replica tends to be looser, with thick vinyl logos and misaligned Omini repeats. |
| Hummel | 1980s to early 1990s, 2010s revival |
✅ Chevron sleeve tapes in woven or satin ✅ Hummel wordmark era-correct ✅ Felt or stitched crests on early pieces 🟠 Replica shows printed chevrons, incorrect angles, and modern care label layouts. |
| Admiral | Mid 1970s to early 1980s |
✅ Cotton or heavy poly; Made in England labels ✅ Flock sponsors ✅ Thick collars and cuffs 🟠 Replica often uses bright polyester, incorrect Admiral logo spacing, and modern size tags. |
| Le Coq Sportif | Early–mid 1980s, 2010s relaunch |
✅ Felt or cotton-backed crests ✅ Triangular Le Coq mark with period font ✅ “Made in France/Tunisia” on older items 🟠 Replica uses glossy fabric and sharp PU where flock should appear. |
| Lotto | Early–mid 1990s |
✅ Sublimated geometric patterns ✅ Woven Lotto diamond marks ✅ Sponsors integrated into print 🟠 Replica adds aftermarket vinyl, wrong shade of purple or red, and generic neck labels. |
| Diadora | 1990s to mid 2000s |
✅ Heavy microfibre poly ✅ Raised PU sponsors ✅ Clean embroidery ✅ Italian sizing on tags 🟠 Replica shows plastic-smelling fabric, off-green or off-burgundy tones, and modern multilingual care tags. |
| Reebok | Mid 1990s to late 2000s |
✅ Vector logo embroidery with tight stitching ✅ Flock or thick PU sponsors ✅ Early PlayDry notes on later seasons 🟠 Replica uses thin vinyl and the wrong Vector proportions. |
| Asics | Early 1990s |
✅ Supple poly-cotton blends ✅ Tidy embroidery ✅ Japan and Serie A teams 🟠 Replica has low thread count crests and modern care symbols. |
| Joma | Late 2000s to early 2010s |
✅ Accurate club fonts and numbers ✅ Solid PU sponsors ✅ Spanish sizing 🟠 Replica prints feel brittle and peel early. |
| Macron | Late 2000s to 2010s |
✅ Thick, structured poly ✅ Sharp silicone crests ✅ Branded jock tags 🟠 Replica shows soft edges on silicone and off-centre sponsor alignment. |
| Erima | 1970s |
✅ Woven Erima neck labels ✅ Cotton or heavy poly ✅ Simple stitched crests 🟠 Replica uses modern synthetic feel and incorrect label typefaces. |
Buying tactics that protect value
Ask for close-ups of the neck label, wash tag, crest, sponsor material, and hem. Compare to period photos from trusted archives or match-day programmes. Confirm that patches and fonts match the league and season. Record everything into a simple provenance file. If a commemorative shirt is offered as original, request proof of release year from the club shop or brand catalogue. If the price is far below the last known sale of a confirmed original, expect a Replica. Slight wear, a missing swing tag, even a repaired seam can be acceptable. A Replica is cheaper but will struggle to resell and will not stand up to grading or expert review.
Care, display, and a collector’s mindset
Older fabrics need care. Cotton and flock do not like heat. Keep shirts out of direct sunlight. Use acid-free mounts for framing and avoid adhesive on sponsors. Air out vintage polyester to remove storage odour, and never dry clean. For signed pieces, prioritise evidence. Photograph labels and trims, then the signing. Retain any club receipts or period packaging. Authentic fanshop bases from older eras are scarce. Price them accordingly and accept honest wear as a positive signal of life.
Frequently Asked Questions
Rely on neck and wash labels, fabric type, sponsor material, crest method, and period-correct fonts and patches, then compare to trusted photo references.
Modern care labels, bright new fabric on a supposed vintage piece, wrong sponsor material, incorrect patch combos, and pristine condition without period packaging.
No. They are later releases. Keep them separate from period fanshop stock and label them clearly in your records.
No. Honest wear supports authenticity and story. Severe damage, odour, and major repairs will reduce liquidity.
Close-ups of labels, crests, sponsors, and hem, plus signing photos and any club receipts. File them with your notes and link to proof on our Collecting pages.