MLB’s new see-through uniforms are revealing more problems for the league.

The league’s much-discussed and often-reviled new uniforms, developed in partnership with Nike and Fanatics, have continued to roil players and fans alike and are now rising to become a potential labor issue. 

MLB Players Association executive director Tony Clark was the latest to sound off on the new-look designs, which are aimed at offering players a lighter, more flexible, and more breathable fabric in which to play, but which have garnered widespread complaints about their aesthetics. The union leader said the organization is seeking changes to the uniforms before Opening Day and that it is working to ensure something “reflective of what being a major league ballplayer should be.

“Hopefully, we can get something done over the course of the next six weeks of spring training because I’d hate to be in a place where we’re still having conversations about some of the challenges we’re having in that regard once the lights come on for real,” Clark said following a visit with Angels players.

His comments arrived in tandem with the Cactus League media days this week in which a new round of player photos and social media content reinforced just how transparent the new uniforms are, with shirttails and undergarments plainly visible, particularly for those in white home jerseys and pants, like the Dodgers (above). Other player complaints—in some cases likening the uniforms to replicas—include reduced customization options for fit, smaller lettering, misaligned characters, and a cheaper overall look.

Prior League Testing

MLB did test this new fabric during last year’s All-Star Game in Seattle and received plenty of player praise at the time. Some players have applauded the shift, including Angels star Mike Trout, who said of the new uniforms, “Change can be good and I’m a big fan of these!!!” But the recent spring training media days have shown much more transparency with the white pants than those worn last summer by the American League All-Stars. 

League commissioner Rob Manfred has pleaded for more time in evaluating the new uniforms and said an adjustment period is required.

“I think after people wear them a little bit, they are going to be very popular,” Manfred said. 

With the dust still settling on the College Football Playoff modifying the qualifying format for the expanded 12-team tournament that begins next season, talk is already shifting toward making that field even bigger. While meeting in Dallas this week, leaders of the CFP discussed the potential for a 14- and even 16-team playoff as soon as 2026, according to multiple reports.

The impact of growing from four to 12 teams won’t even be fully realized until next winter, and further expansion will surely lead to more ripple effects. Here’s what we know and what’s at stake:

First-Round Revenue

In December, the top four seeds will receive byes, while seeds 5–8 will host home playoff games against seeds 9–12. The CFP will retain all ticket revenue from those matchups and distribute it across conferences, the organization confirmed to Front Office Sports. So a 16-team playoff would simply mean more ticket revenue to share, as opposed to four more schools cashing in on a home playoff game. Details are still being finalized on what will happen to other revenue from things like concessions and parking.

Which Bowls Benefit?

In December, after the four first-round games on campuses, the quarterfinals and semifinals will be hosted by the traditional New Year’s Six bowls. A 16-team playoff could make even more schools unavailable for non-CFP matchups, but Nick Carparelli, the executive director of Bowl Season, is still optimistic about the future. “We’re very hopeful that after they experiment with the campus games this year, that they’ll realize that the bowl game experience is better for everyone involved,” he tells FOS. “College athletics—regardless of the sport—has always embraced the neutral site concept for postseason competition. And we think college football should maintain that.” Carparelli has one major reason in particular: “If there’s a discrepancy in the seeding of the playoff and a quality team has to go on the road, they may not think it’s such a good idea as they do now.”

Divvying Up TV Pie

FOS media reporter Michael McCarthy cites the law of unintended consequences in predicting the ensuing fallout: “My concern is how the expanded playoff will devalue the media rights—and overall value—of non-CFP bowl games. Once ESPN and other media giants divide up the only bowls that will matter, who’s going to want to televise second- and third-tier games? Even Barstool Sports might be backing out of college sporting events. On the business side, who’s going to sponsor these meaningless exhibitions? Chico’s Bail Bonds? So, good luck to these businesses in the future. Unless they come up with a gimmick like the Pop-Tarts Bowl, they’re going to need a new business plan.” 

But Fox Sports college football announcer Tim Brando tells McCarthy more playoff expansion is “tremendous for the overall growth” of the sport, in particular creating more meaningful matchups in November. 

Athlete Representation

Amanda Christovich, college sports reporter at FOS, says, “The talk of yet another College Football Playoff expansion illustrates the glaring lack of athlete representation in the sport. In the pros, any game expansion would be negotiated with a players’ union—just look at the back-and-forth between the NFL and the NFLPA over expanding the regular season to 17 games over 16. Especially in a sport like football, more games means more hours and more opportunity for injury. While player well-being was discussed as part of the 12-team expansion, it wasn’t the main issue. As always, the main issue was revenue generation—and that trend appears to be continuing as administrators consider future CFP models.”