Something that should be remembered when we talk about football design is that it doesn't always have to refer to association football. There are plenty of other sports, codes, whatever you want to call them, that come under the umbrella of "football". When I talk about football I might mean any one of them or maybe all of them.

I'm lying, of course. When I say football I mean the game where the prime donnes stick the pig's bladder in the onion bag and get paid squillions to do so, but let's just pretend for a while...

A few weeks ago, the Milan football - sorry, association football - team met up with the All Blacks, New Zealand rugby t- sorry, rugby football team at Milan's Milanello training complex. Aside from the fact that Milanello is itself a triumph of architectural and technical football design, the adidas-arranged meeting reminded us of the classic kit designs in both football and rugby (I got sick of it). The timeless black and red stripes of Milan versus the imposing all black of, er, the All Blacks.

Obviously the modern day kits are covered in insignia and engrained with performance technology but, particularly in the case of the All Blacks, the basic and unchanging principles of the design are still the priority. Other than adidas, and at adidas's behest, no sponsor adorns the Kiwi shirt and the three stripes are surrendered in exchange for an association with one of sport's most recognisable and iconic outfits.

Rugby in general, for me, has some of the most wonderful shirts which rival some of football's most famous. Comparitively speaking, rugby union has only recently become a professional sport and this allowed the most beautiful and unsullied kit design to endure through to recent times. Most have finally been replaced with supremely functional sportswear but the classic white collar on the plain green of Ireland and red of Wales were prime examples. For me, a Cotton Traders retro shirt will always be preferable to the current styles.

You don't mess with classic design.  Or so found Puma when they attempted to stamp their mark on the Feyenoord halves.  Revealed this week, the 09/10 shirts featured two stripes, forming a V shape on the shoulder area and a collarless neck design.  These features appear to not have been greeted by the Feyenoord supporters.

As things stand Puma have stated they will listen to the criticism (mainly in the form of emails and forum posts.  So they'll probably read it rather than listen to it) and then come up with something better.  Seeing as the kits were revealed six months before there's any chance of anyone wearing them they've got plenty of time.  It does make you wonder why they did unveil them so early.  Possibly because they knew there would be a backlash and wanted to see if it would be grave enough to require them to re-design, possibly to build interest and anticipation of the release date or maybe, just maybe, the shirt was never going to be used and was always intended to act as a comparison to prove the actual shirt is worth the €60-70 it'll no doubt retail for.

But let's not be so cynical.  Instead let's enjoy the victory of the fans over the might of a major sportswear manufacturer.  Money generally calls the shots in football and just recently the example of Arsenal losing their white sleeves shows that once a company has paid for the privilege of producing a shirt, that usually means they do what they like.  But not always.

The protracted tale of what West Ham United should wear on their shirts recently came to something of a conclusion with pressure from the supporters leading to children's shirts bearing the logo of The Bobby Moore Fund.  Being cynical comes naturally to me but that affair can also be seen as an achievement for the ticket (and shirt)-buying public.  At the very least, something was done to appease the fans.  It wasn't sufficient but it was something.

Supporters venting anger when their club messes with tradition is not a recent phenomenon.  In 1992 Wolverhampton Wanderers released a shirt covered in coloured flecks which took emphasis away from the usual black and gold and the fan reaction was so vocal - in a time before web forums and email - that the shirt did not last long.  No Wolves kit manufacturer has tried anything similar since.  It would be interesting to see if the likes of Nike would dare.

So perhaps the power is shifting.  Several teams, most notably Middlesbrough, have recently arranged for several designs by their manufacturer to be chosen from by the fans, the winner becoming the kit for the players to wear and for the supporters to buy.  It's not a huge leap for this to become the policy of a Big Four side and it makes commercial sense too.  If the kit has been voted for by the fans then, on the whole, it'd be something they're more likely to identify with and wear.

But why stop there?  Why not open up everything that goes into the release of a football shirt to the people who actually care.  You can research markets all you like, get all the qualifications in fashion and sports design out there but can you really put into a shirt what someone who lives for the team can?  Expertise is vital in creating a shirt that achieves both performance and aesthetic success but we have to wonder how major an ingredient are the feelings of the fans.  An Anfield flag on the inside of the Liverpool shirt and, to Nike's credit, this seasons's Arsenal away shirt certainly show a finger on the pulse, but could the brands do better?

So we now have a competition to design a Nike kit for Poland.  The winning entry won't be the style worn by the players or supporters (as far as we know) but it'll give Nike something to think about when they finalise their own offering.  And this is only the beginning.  Eventually we may find the kits that our favourite teams are wearing started life, not as a standard template on a drawing board in plush headquarters, but possibly in the head of a fan.

So Liverpool FC have backed down in their bid to register the Liver Bird emblem as a trademark of the club.  This is due to the move being met with not insubstantial opposition and I have to say that I'm intrigued.

Liverpool City Council were preparing a legal counter to The Reds' application based on the fact that the Liver Bird is used as a symbol of the city in administrative and denotative capacities.  But Liverpool (and I mean the football club) made it very clear that the city would be welcome to use the bird as they already do, at no charge, and the action was simply being undertaken to have some legal footing when it came to the battle against unofficial Liverpool merchandise.  Currently the feeling is that non-affiliated shirts, footballs, scarves etc are being sold as competition to the "genuine" apparell and the like.  This is what Liverpool wanted to stamp out.

So Millwall have got a new shirt. And it's pretty good. Little wonder. It's orange.

Some of the best shirts have been orange (or "tangerine". It's the last time you'll see me call a shirt that) and it just makes a mockery of Graham Taylor's dislike of the colour. "Do I not like orange". Do I not like orange? Yes. Er, no. Yes I do like orange shirts.

Millwall have gone with the colour of kings, pseudo-literally speaking. The Dutch royal family is known as the House of Orange-Nassau and, despite what Graham thinks, Holland have had some of the best orange shirts over the years. Their 70s number was one of the first to feature adidas's three stripes down the sleeve. That is until Johan Cruyff got his hands on his and tore a stripe off in an apparent show of support of his sponsor Puma (Adi/Rudi Dassler etc). Unwittingly he created a two-striped classic and Puma have recently shown their appreciation in shirts such as this season's Spurs away.

In 1988 the victorious Dutch team of Rijkaard, Gullit & van Basten won the Euro with one of that period's most iconic kits and the patterned design has recently featured (inverted) in adidas's Originals range, despite the Dutch now having an equally superb Nike-manufactured kit. From the flag detail on the neck (echoing Ruud Gullit's horizontal tricolour captain's armband) to the beautiful socks in nassau blue (how many colours does that royal family want?!) Nike have created a masterpiece. Even the bizarre shirt numbers add to the effect.

Ok, so England actually won the game 2-1 and that, if anything, flattered the Germans.  But, whatever the British media will have you believe, the game really didn't matter that much.  It was a friendly between two teams whose players on the night have both bigger fish to fry in club football and more important international battles on the horizon.  Most of these players are too young to remember the 1990 World Cup (one of the only benefits of being old: I do) let alone 1970, 1966 or its melodically referenced companions the "two world wars" so it was an experimental exercise with little edge.

Ok, so if we wanna talk football, it was pretty good from an English point of view (which I occasionally have).  England attacked well, showed good movement off the ball and the likes of Shaun Wright-Phillips actually taking players on (successfully!) is a joy to behold.  Even the frankly odious John Terry did the decent thing and admitted he was the culpable party for the German goal and Gabi Agbonlahor made an impressive and loooong overdue debut (I've been demanding this for years.  Thanks for listening, Fabio).  Enjoy it while it lasts, England fans.  Really, Wednesday night you should have played the lottery, rung up Noel Gallagher to see if he needs another touring guitarist and asked out Keeley Hazell.  Things seemed to be going in your favour.

But the bigger victories went to the Germans.  Yep, I'm talking football design (humour me).  1-0 with the kit and with the stadium, a cracker, they made it 2.

The Mirror recently unveiled that David Beckham will wear the number 75 shirt at Milan.  If this is true then it's no great surprise (though I actually called 45 to continue the Michael Jordan theme) as Beckham's favoured numbers 7 and 23 are taken by Pato and Ambrosini respectively and DB7/23/75 was born in 1975.  In fact, and here's a surprise, it's a marketing masterstroke.

Players have been using more imaginative or high numbers for several years now.  Two great examples were Ivan Zamorano's inventive use of a plus sign to, in his own mind, continue wearing number 9 upon Ronaldo's arrival at Inter and Bixente Lizarazu's apparently erotic numbering on rejoining Bayern Munich.  The latter turned out to be an early example of the year of birth method and that's the current fashion at Milan (Google "Milan Fashion" and this'll no doubt prove me right).  

Shevchenko, Ronaldinho and Flamini have all recently been brought in and all wear their year of birth on their backs.  As a result, lots of fans also wear their (Shevchenko, Ronaldinho and Flamini's) year of birth so Beckham fits perfectly into this. Throw in the ever-secretive Sporting ID's club-specific fonts and numbering style and you have a late entry on a million Christmas lists.  Threefold.

The difference between the potential for shirt sales "on the back" of this deal compared with that of other deals is that this is temporary.  When a player moves the temptation may be to wait to see how the move works out.  No one wants a DIOUF 9 Liverpool shirt (I lie.  I had one on sale on jfh29er and it went.  Eventually) or a Balaban 19 Villa one but, while Beckham's not really expected to set the San Siro alight, crucially, he'd also have to go some to really blot his copybook in two months.  Beckham, his team, Milan and his bootmaker/sponsor adidas (it's not just convenient that it's Milan and not Inter or Juve) have engineered this move because people can buy into a piece of history.  You can complete your set with a Beckham 75 Milan shirt and, guess what, it never goes out of date because there'll only ever be one style that Beckham wore.