I’ve seen a lot of confusion on social media recently about why not every AAF team has 2 uniforms. Only San Diego, Orlando and Memphis have 2, while the other 5 only have one.
So why is that?
The reason is that not every team needs one, and the Alliance is not going to spend unnecessary money. Especially with the financial scare it had after week 1.
“Why doesn’t every team need a second uniform?”
The AAF intentionally made each uniform with enough contrast between each other so that a majority of games would be color on color. For example, you’d be able to tell the difference between Arizona playing San Antonio, because their uniforms are different enough.
These would be the few games that a team would likely need to wear an alternate uniform:
This table is purely based on how well the main color of the jersey contrasts against the other. I didn’t account for helmets or pants because if the Alliance had, Memphis wouldn’t have needed an alternate vs neither Birmingham nor Atlanta.
The Alliance is similar to college hockey in that way. There are some teams who will have a color on color matchup because they have 2 uniforms that contrast well. Such as when Michigan wears maize vs Notre Dame in blue, or when Army wears gold vs RMC in red.
But anyway, that’s only 8 match-ups that can theoretically happen. The rest of the games don’t need an alternate, so each team having one would be a waste of money.
So if not every team needs an alternate, why would the AAF spend money on it? They shouldn’t, so they won’t.