I'm not not going to get too caught up on the rights/wrong of fake boots. That's been discussed loads before, and I find that it gets in the way of the real questions that I want to ask today. We'll touch on morality later on when we sum up, but the key here is to start a discussion, make people think a little differently.
We are in no way endorsing any products and are not receiving any payments.
This is an honest appraisal of what we will start to call here onwards as "replicas" against their "real" counterparts.
Myself and Jumbo have been looking into the murky world of counterfeits, with football boots put under the microscope in this post. We've asked a lot of honest questions in this article, and I'm sure there will be a vast spectrum of views afterwards, but that's all we're hoping to achieve here, starting a discussion.
At the heart, it's flagrant disregard of copyright, it wouldn't be acceptable if someone changed 1 word from a Pearl Jam tune and sold the single for 75% of the retail version. It's plagiarism at best, criminal at worst.
It's wrong...
But are fake boots any good?
We've been doing some testing; and looking at comfort, durability, realness and price. We can't test them all out, but we looked at the 3 models below, and have compared them to the real versions:
- Predator '98 Accelerator Remakes
- Predator Mutator 20+
- Predator Mutator 20.1 Low
Here's our findings:
COMFORT: So each model was different. But overall the comfortability was 7/8 out of 10. There's definitely a moderate markdown on comfort from the real versions. The replicas just seem harder and less malleable. But like any boot, I felt that they just need longer to wear in, before the comfort levels between the 2 start to equalise. The Accelerators, were quite comfy, very well cushioned but they did feel cheaper than the real versions. It felt like you had pillows around your foot and lockdown was no where near as good.
The Mutator 20+, weren't as comfortable, it's hard to put a figure on it. But I'd say around 15-20% less comfortable. Remember the 20+ is the most elite version of the boot out there, so it sets the bar high.. The upper felt more rigid, but again, this was on early wear, they start to mould to your foot over time, so that time has to be factored in. It's slightly less compressed around your ankle which makes the lockdown worse too. But the fact they improve over time, is admirable.
The Mutator 20.1 real versions were heavily criticised for being way too narrow in the mid-foot. Generally praised as a boot that could of been perfect apart from this fault, it's like the replicas duly took note and expanded it. I guess this is one positive aspect of the replicas, they often get released a few months after the real ones, so can digest the criticism and tweak their own designs. The midfoot on these replicas was more relaxed, which almost made the boot almost perfect.
DURABILITY: This has been the biggest downside of replicas. But why? Where does it come from?
People just make judgements based on other things, there's no causal links from what I can see. People assume that replicas use worse materials in an attempt to keep the cost down. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if the big companies like Adidas use the same materials but bump up the retail price? We've been programmed to think a certain way. In my general life, I never try to convince people to live life a certain way or my way, I just try to get them to ask different questions.
In my opinion, I couldn't see much difference in terms of durability on all 3 replicas. In fact there's been loads of reports of the spikes falling off the real versions of the Mutators. SR4U (https://soccerreviewsforyou.com/) are of the opinion that this is to be expected. I completely disagree. Again, people have been programmed to accept this shoddy manufacturing, but it isn't good enough. If the replicas don't experience these issues, then the real retail versions which come in at well over £200, shouldn't either. Accepting anything less, is not good enough.
You can't automatically assume that cheaper replicas are less durable, but then not hold the real versions up to the same standards.
REALNESS: How do they compare in terms of aesthetics. I can't complain. 10 years ago, some of the boots were laughable, but technology has improved and I can honestly say that without literally putting the boots under the microscope you wouldn't notice the differences. There's slight changes, mainly with the logos, or the 3 stripes, it's the the same with the Nike logo on other boots. They may be a millimetre thinner or the branding slightly out of place. Honestly when you're playing, you notice nothing. This applies to all 3 replica boots we've looked at.
PRICE: And here we have it. From all the talk above, we see slight differences. I'd go as far to say that only elite level ballerz will notice big differences in comfort, durability and looks. But we can all see the difference in price.
Real Approx. Price Replicas Approx. Price
Accelerator '98 Remake £300 £80
Mutator 20+ £250 £40
Mutator 20.1 £180 £40
Conclusions: Are replica boots worth it? Yes. 100%.
Let go of all your pre-conceptions and look at this honestly, based on price, durability, comfort and looks.
The point I want to put across here, is that above we have compared real boots directly with their replicas. But is this correct? On price alone, the big issue I have, is that Adidas, Nike, Puma etc, create different price tiers for their boots. In this particular example, Adidas produce Predator Mutator 20.4s, and their entry price is around £30-40.
Here in, lies the problem
It goes back to my original point, about how we are programmed to believe certain narratives. Replica boots are cheap, so they will automatically be of less quality and fall apart. This is all dependent on the view that Adidas are using the best materials in their boots, and are then marketing their boot prices accordingly.
BUT...
The Adidas Mutator 20.1 low cut boots are £180. The 20.4 tier boots are £30. The replica boots are £40. So how can a 3rd party manufacturer produce replicas of this level of quality for that price??!!
AND...
Why can't Adidas then produce a 20.4 Mutator Predator low cut......that looks exactly the same as the 20.1 for a cheaper price. With the internet, review blogs and sites saturate the web, and the reality is, that if Adidas did this....then the consumers would buy up the replicas if they were marketed as 20.4 priced boots.
Why buy the 20.1 boots when you can get a similar quality of boot at a fraction of the price.
It's the narrative has been set by people who don't question things. If people repeat the same tropes over, people get brainwashed into not questioning anything.
They hold the replica boots up to the standard of the real boots. In fact, lets flip that narrative, and also compare the real boots to replicas. AND, lets compare them both with a real boot which is priced the same as a replica.
Only then, do you start asking the right questions.
At the beginning of this article, I said I wanted to park the morality argument to one side. Let's revisit this though now, in concluding...
Why am I paying so much for an elite tier football boot?
If I can't afford that budget, then the only option I have is to buy the lower priced tiers which look ridiculously cheap, they share nothing with the elite tier boots. In fact they make you stand out on pitch, they show what your price range is, a stick to beat you and embarrass you with. This just continues to cause inequality within our beautiful game.
We've seen the replicas, and as far as I'm concerned, if a 3rd party manufacturer can create a replica boot of this quality.......then why can't Adidas and the other big boot manufacturers do the same?
Who is really morally in the wrong here....the replica producers or the big boot companies?
We'll be posting more photos of the replicas in time, so check back for the visual comparisons in time and make your own mind up...
Here's a quick comparison visually of the Adidas Predator Mutator 20.1 Low Cut.
It's a really good guide, to show the slight differences. We mentioned it before, but the overall shape of the replica is wider and higher, which seems to address the biggest complaint of the real versions, with constriction in the mid-foot.
What do you think?
So initial analysis does show some very minor differences:-
- First pic shows 2 spikes near the Demonskin logo which aren't on the replica
- The paint brush strokes are also slightly different, in thickness and length
- There is also very slight extra width on the replica, overall, this slightly changes the shape
- Demonskin logo is slightly thicker and has less letter spacing on the replica
- The replica studs look very slightly bigger
- The heel studs base is slighly longer
- Again there's extra midfoot width along the sole of the boots on the replica
- The predator logo backing is slightly bigger on the replica
- The heel pull tab on the replica is thinner too
- Can't see huge differences in the Demonskin config on the upper
- The paint brush strokes of the red, is very slightly different, location, thickness etc.
- Ignore the colour differences, this is just the camera quality. The RED on the replica is deeper and darker
- The flyknit upper, lacing and 3 stripes are almost exact between the 2
- Very slight difference in the location of the 3-stripes
- the over boot is slightly less narrow which affects the overall aesthetic of the replica
- the sole plate is very slightly in different locations but I would think this level of detail is different on all real Mutators
- Adidas Logo is slightly smaller and higher on the knitted tongue
- Less of an arch on the replicas in the midfoot section, its slightly more flatter and horizontal
- Finally, again, you can see the less narrow constrictive overall shape of the replica vs the real model. Look at the lacing and toe sections, there's definitely more height.....which I believe improves the fit
- Slight size differences in the 3-stripes, and the adidas logo on tongue being smaller and higher up it
REAL - Left REPLICA- Right
Comments