Best worldcup logo 1930 - 2014

[peterwalker]

hey all. guys what do you think which of the World Cup logos do you think was best?
you can find some of the logos here too, i found it during roaming around..
http://bit.ly/b7bJ4H
well I think logo of World Cup 2006 is the best, what do u guys say .?

[Blond-Arrow]

^Link fail.

[peterwalker]

^Link fail.

seems some technical problem.::worried:

[Cherry.DeRossi]

I love the WC2006 logo too...

[The_Crazy_Freak]

1966 and 1950 logos :)

[Saraj Fanatico]

For me its got to be Korea-Japan 2002. Awesome.

[Blond-Arrow]

^Yeah the same.

[luciam1988]

1950 no doubts

[klipan]

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/fifa-logo-evolution/

for me the next one .... 2014

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/brazil-2014-l.jpg

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/logo-blog2.jpg

[Mac Daddy D]

1934 and 66 for me.

[Finaslan]

1950 and 2014.

[federicobeatle]

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/fifa-logo-evolution/

for me the next one .... 2014

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/brazil-2014-l.jpg

http://www.logoblog.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/logo-blog2.jpg

No, these are awful, incredibly old-fashioned, like a 1930's WC. Same as on the London Olympics.
Hands and ribbons! no imagination!

Trust me, I am a Designer

[Mac Daddy D]

^ Ok then. As a designer which one do you feel is best?

[klipan]

^ Ok then. As a designer which one do you feel is best?

:lol:

[ferguson92]

i am not a designer and i like the 2010 World Cup logo :D
http://twenty10soccerworldcup.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/south-africa-2010-world-cup-logo-1.png

[federicobeatle]

^ Ok then. As a designer which one do you feel is best?

Mexico 70 and Korea-Japan 2002 represent the design of their time the best. As for the pre-1970 world cups, it is more difficult to judge as they are too far back in the past.

[federicobeatle]

i am not a designer and i like the 2010 World Cup logo :D
http://twenty10soccerworldcup.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/south-africa-2010-world-cup-logo-1.png

This one is good because it has a definite African image

[Vipaman]

No outright favorites but 2006 and 2010 are nice and colorful. 1970 and 74 have to be the worst ones ever. Did they have no design budget at all? :tsk:

[federicobeatle]

No outright favorites but 2006 and 2010 are nice and colorful. 1970 and 74 have to be the worst ones ever. Did they have no design budget at all? :tsk:

That's where you are wrong, spending money on a logo is not going to make it better. The London Olympics logo must have cost a fortune and is awful; it has been trashed by everyone. A design student could have done better for 50 quid. I get the feeling that the designers for the logos/posters (they are not logos really, they are posters) of the 30's must have got a free ticket to a match as pay.

[Saraj Fanatico]

http://www.mcz.com/wc2002/images/emblem.gif

Easily the best one, just look at those colors and design. I also like the very Asian-like font used for "Korea" and "Japan".

[Vipaman]

That's where you are wrong, spending money on a logo is not going to make it better.

Well, who cares what the reason is, the designs of 1970 and 1974 look like no one put any thought into them whatsoever.

[klipan]

Well, who cares what the reason is, the designs of 1970 and 1974 look like no one put any thought into them whatsoever.

yes, and 1978 too :)

[federicobeatle]

I have just noticed that the hand they put on top of the cup, on the Brazil 2014 poster, looks like a bloke's head with a comb-over. Is it supposed to represent Bobby Charlton? :ronaldo:

[xfirestormx]

Mexico 70 and Korea-Japan 2002 represent the design of their time the best. As for the pre-1970 world cups, it is more difficult to judge as they are too far back in the past.

i am a designer as well, and i agree totally, mexico 70 was my pick, and i think there are good things about korea/japan (although those gradients... jesus). one thing that is surprisingly consistent about these logos - horrible horrible kerning.

the pre-70 ones (and even the 1970 world cup to a certain degree) aren't really logos, theyre more like posters, so yeah i dont know what to say about them except that 38 looks pretty epic.

overall these logos are pretty bad to be honest. i don't know what the deal is with olympic / world cup logos. they usually are completely terrible. except for salt lake city 2002 i think it was? that logo was ok.

[federicobeatle]

World Cup 2014 logo in honour of Bobby Charlton

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2576/charltonbobbybi.jpghttp://img638.imageshack.us/img638/1650/brazil2010.jpg

[Vipaman]

:lol:

[xfirestormx]

1970 and 74 have to be the worst ones ever. Did they have no design budget at all? :tsk:

well heres the thing, that poster is typical of the international style, but i agree with you in that its not as good as it could be. however, the main graphic (what i would call the logo, even though this looks more like a poster) is interesting and has good negative space. to be honest, all this logo needs is: smaller subtitle type, more kerning, and more color. if it had that it would be a good logo. i probably wouldnt choose the mexico typeface either, but that was also used for their olympics so i probably wouldnt have a choice with that. right now its just the best because its not terrible, not because its great.

the 2006 and 2010 logos are perfect examples of what not to do in logo design - design a scene instead of an idea. theyre just busy busy busy. the most confusing thing about the 06 logo is that the entire 2002 logo is actually IN the 2006 logo. lol i dunno what they were thinking with that. and i just noticed its also in the 2010 logo as well... jeez.

however, where the 06 and 10 logos do better is color. but there is just way too much going on.

btw not being a hardass - design is one of the most objective kinds of art because it is so incredibly simplified (taking ideas / events / people etc and making them into single shapes is ridiculous). many designers disagree about tons of stuff so don't take my disagreement personally

[Solid Snake]

Mexico 86:

http://www.eitb.com/multimedia/images/2009/10/26/191544/191544_Mexico_70_dest_2.jpg

Just kidding :Pound:

The Mexico 1970 was simple but good:

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q184/luisfernando908/ebay2/1970.jpg

The Mexico 1986 was horrible IMO

http://belgium.worldcupblog.org/files/2008/06/mexico-1986.gif

[federicobeatle]

I am going to have to expand on the Mexico 1970 logo (one of the few real logos) since one of the people who worked on the Mexico 68 and 70 graphics was my tutor at college and he told me the intention in design; at the risk of boring people it may be interesting for some to know how designers think about these things.

As somebody said above, the Mexico 70 logo was a continuation of the Mexico 68 logo and graphics. They decided to superimpose the international western design style of the 60's and 70's (design had to be simple, simple, simple and geometrical) with Mexican culture design. So the ball is in the international western design trend of the time, the writing follows ancient Aztec design where they repeated the silhouette of the object being illustrated several times around the object, and the colour is in more contemporary Mexican design - pink is often used in architecture, graphics, arts and crafts, cinema, painting, you name it.

[federicobeatle]

the 2006 and 2010 logos are perfect examples of what not to do in logo design - design a scene instead of an idea. theyre just busy busy busy.





Yes but maybe you agree that if they are judged as posters rather than logos, then the design scene is acceptable

[xfirestormx]

Yes but maybe you agree that if they are judged as posters rather than logos, then the design scene is acceptable

true true. i mean im still not a fan of them as posters, but seeing that on a poster rather than seeing it on the cover of a video game / football / jersey would definitely help.

however i think that, nowadays, when the mark is put everywhere, big or small, i cant help but think that having it work only at a large format is a mistake. but then again, what i am calling a mistake seems to be a trend, as more and more i am seeing super busy, gradient filled logos.

one thing i think that is interesting is that all the logos completely change after 70 - they become more simplified and direct, and now they seem to be heading in the opposite direction some 40 years later. kind of interesting. although the brazil logo sort of contradicts that statement.