CLOSE
Original image
Getty Images

Why Do We Call Athletic Uniforms “Jerseys”?

Original image
Getty Images

Super Bowl XLVIII is this weekend, and both teams have already selected their designated uniforms for the occasion. But have you ever wondered why we call these athletic garments “jerseys” in the first place?

Sorry, New Jerseyites: the moniker isn’t an homage to the Garden State, at least not directly. The actual island of Jersey is a “crown dependency” of the UK whose natives have been knitting hardy wool sweaters for centuries. Noted for their tight weave, these warm articles of clothing were initially used as an inner layer by rural seamen before gradually evolving into a type of common outerwear. Jersey sweaters spread to the UK and northern Europe as the country’s trading industry rose in prominence during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Their popularity skyrocketed abroad—so much so, in fact, that the name “jersey” became synonymous with “sweater” in countries as far away as the United States by the 1850s.

And speaking of the Yanks, as American football developed, it was clear that players of the rough-and-tumble game (which often claimed multiple lives every year prior to Theodore Roosevelt’s intervention in 1905) needed strong, insular uniforms. Thick wool “jerseys” fit the bill perfectly. Bikers, golfers, and other athletes began donning the sweaters as well.

Yet, as the Gilded Age wore on, athletic “jerseys” bore increasingly little resemblance to their bulky ancestral tops. Just as the name had previously become synonymized with “sweater,” it was now indistinguishable from the term “athletic uniform.” For example, lightweight baseball shirts were often called “jerseys” by the press during this period despite being generally made of flannel and incorporating short sleeves, buttons, and collars. However, regardless of these developments, the name stuck.

This trend also spread north of the border, to the chagrin of Canadian hockey fans, as longtime NHL commentator Don Cherry recalls in his book Don Cherry’s Hockey Stories, Part 2:

“[Hockey] sweaters are now called jerseys, if you can believe it, and we’ve sort of accepted that. But in Canada, it was always called a sweater… Americans used jerseys when they were playing football; then, when they finally got around to playing hockey, they used the same name. Nowadays, most kids call sweaters jerseys. Another little part of our hockey heritage is gone.”

For those interested, the jerseys we’ll see this Sunday as the Denver Broncos take on the Seattle Seahawks consist largely of nylon and spandex

Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
arrow
Big Questions
Why Do Baseball Managers Wear Uniforms?
Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

Basketball and hockey coaches wear business suits on the sidelines. Football coaches wear team-branded shirts and jackets and often ill-fitting pleated khakis. Why are baseball managers the only guys who wear the same outfit as their players?

According to John Thorn, the official historian of Major League Baseball since 2011, it goes back to the earliest days of the game. Back then, the person known as the manager was the business manager: the guy who kept the books in order and the road trips on schedule. Meanwhile, the guy we call the manager today, the one who arranges the roster and decides when to pull a pitcher, was known as the captain. In addition to managing the team on the field, he was usually also on the team as a player. For many years, the “manager” wore a player’s uniform simply because he was a player. There were also a few captains who didn’t play for the team and stuck to making decisions in the dugout, and they usually wore suits.

With the passing of time, it became less common for the captain to play, and on most teams they took on strictly managerial roles. Instead of suits proliferating throughout America’s dugouts, though, non-playing captains largely hung on to the tradition of wearing a player's uniform. By the early to mid 20th century, wearing the uniform was the norm for managers, with a few notable exceptions. The Philadelphia Athletics’s Connie Mack and the Brooklyn Dodgers’s Burt Shotton continued to wear suits and ties to games long after it fell out of favor (though Shotton sometimes liked to layer a team jacket on top of his street clothes). Once those two retired, it’s been uniforms as far as the eye can see.

The adherence to the uniform among managers in the second half of the 20th century leads some people to think that MLB mandates it, but a look through the official major league rules [PDF] doesn’t turn up much on a manager’s dress. Rule 1.11(a) (1) says that “All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players’ uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs" and rule 2.00 states that a coach is a "team member in uniform appointed by the manager to perform such duties as the manager may designate, such as but not limited to acting as base coach."

While Rule 2.00 gives a rundown of the manager’s role and some rules that apply to them, it doesn’t specify that they’re uniformed. Further down, Rule 3.15 says that "No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club." Again, nothing about the managers being uniformed.

All that said, Rule 2.00 defines the bench or dugout as “the seating facilities reserved for players, substitutes and other team members in uniform when they are not actively engaged on the playing field," and makes no exceptions for managers or anyone else. While the managers’ duds are never addressed anywhere else, this definition does seem to necessitate, in a roundabout way, that managers wear a uniform—at least if they want to have access to the dugout. And, really, where else would they sit?

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
How Long Could a Person Survive With an Unlimited Supply of Water, But No Food at All?
Original image
iStock

How long could a person survive if he had unlimited supply of water, but no food at all?

Richard Lee Fulgham:

I happen to know the answer because I have studied starvation, its course, and its utility in committing a painless suicide. (No, I’m not suicidal.)

A healthy human being can live approximately 45 to 65 days without food of any kind, so long as he or she keeps hydrated.

You could survive without any severe symptoms [for] about 30 to 35 days, but after that you would probably experience skin rashes, diarrhea, and of course substantial weight loss.

The body—as you must know—begins eating itself, beginning with adipose tissue (i.e. fat) and next the muscle tissue.

Google Mahatma Gandhi, who starved himself almost to death during 14 voluntary hunger strikes to bring attention to India’s independence movement.

Strangely, there is much evidence that starvation is a painless way to die. In fact, you experience a wonderful euphoria when the body realizes it is about to die. Whether this is a divine gift or merely secretions of the brain is not known.

Of course, the picture is not so pretty for all reports. Some victims of starvation have experienced extreme irritability, unbearably itchy skin rashes, unceasing diarrhea, painful swallowing, and edema.

In most cases, death comes when the organs begin to shut down after six to nine weeks. Usually the heart simply stops.

(Here is a detailed medical report of the longest known fast: 382 days.)

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios