I’d love to get a Chelsea F.C. jersey, but I refuse to wear sponsor logos (in this case Adidas and Samsung). Is it possible to get soccer jerseys that don’t have that stuff on them or is that just the way it is?
I’m pretty sure the sponsorship contracts would prohibit logo-less official jerseys.
However you could go retro and get a replica jerseyfrom the old days.
What’s the problem with the sponsor logos? Isn’t that part of the jersey? Is it just the logos, or do you also object to the three stripes along the top?
You might as well just get a blue shirt. Or some sort of t-shirt, I suppose. (I hope you have no issue with the hashtag.)
EPL? What the hell is EPL?
Ohhhhhh, you probably mean BPL, the Barclay’s Premier League. Please be more considerate in the future: Barclay’s paid a lot of money for that B.
(Anyway, I’m certain that the answer to your question is “No” or “Not without a bootleg.”)
Looks hard to do that nowadays - the sportswear company’s logo (e.g. adidas) would always be on the kit but you did used to be able to get them sponsor-free.
The age of branding and the global reach of the EPL seems to have put a stop to that. Shame - agree with the OP that a sponsor’s logo generally looks tacky.
Some vintage kits with sponsors from the early 80s look cool, though. Takes you back - I have an everton away one sponsored by Hafnia - Danish purveyors of canned meats 
I refuse to accept third-party advertising on my sports paraphernalia. I find the whole idea offensive, both aesthetically and as a fan. I won’t contribute my money to it and I won’t wear it.
If I can’t get a jersey without them, I just won’t wear a jersey. I’ll stick to wearing my U.S. sports caps and jerseys, which don’t have third-party advertising on them. Indeed, Major League Baseball bans advertising on player uniforms, a position that all sports leagues should take.
Remove the sponsor logos and you still have a distinctive design with team colors and symbols. It’s not like a plain blue shirt. That’s a ridiculous idea.
Is it just that the logos are visible, or that they take sponsorship at all? If the latter, then you should have a look at this list of MLB sponsors. Sponsors on shirts are are just part of football here, you can’t get away from it. The cynical view is that teams change sponsors every so often just to keep fans buying new kit.
I once bought a team shirt because it had a corporate sponsor. The company I used to work for sponsored London Wasps rugby for a season or two.
I don’t care what their financial relationships are. I won’t wear the logos.
Given that a football match has limited scope for ordinary commercials, I find the sponsored kit a fair compromise–better this than stopping the action for commercials. I do find the colored logos a bit (Man U, Newcastle) irritating, but I’ll deal.
Well, you better start cheering for classic Barca, they were the only ones without sponsorship for a very long time (although they did support Unicef for a while). Now they have Qatar Foundation on their shirt IIRC.
Fair enough. How about something like this? It’s not what the players wear but you can show support without the corporate logos.
Agreed. However, they should be able to sell them to fans without the logos. It’s not like I’m going to but a Samsung because it’s on Ascenray’s jersey. But if Diego Costa wears one, I just might…especially if one his goals wins me some $$$ on a Saturday morning! 
I’m surprised no one has mentioned training jerseys. I just checked World Soccer Shop and they have unbranded Chelsea training jerseys. Sure, the design is a bit different from the game jersey, but it has the club logo and no mention of Samsung. (They also have a large assortment of advertisement-free throwback jerseys, as has been mentioned.)
Personally, I think the local advertising gives the shirts a nice flavor. But I’ll admit I have avoided certain teams with particularly obnoxious or garish sponsors. I would wear an Arsenal “Dreamcast” jersey now because it’s funny, but I thought it was too awful to spend money on 20 years ago.
Is that what people generally mean by BPL? For some reason, I thought BPL was used by semi-joking pedants to mean “British Premier League” because Swansea is in Wales, not England.
(I’ve got nothing to add on-topic. Sorry! However, on a vaguely related note: In the U.S., people who saw my Ajax jersey made as many comments about the ABN AMRO sponsorship as they did about the team.)
“EPL soccer jersey”. Translation: Premier League football shirt. Kind of funny that every component of the phrase is different.
I had no idea that “jersey” isn’t used this way in England. What would you use the word jersey for?
A nice wooly jumper.
Or a cow.
Or an island near France.
ETA:
TBH I have no issue with calling it a jersey. I’m pretty sure they used to be called that when I was a kid. “Uniform” is the Americanism that I find weird when referring to sports clothing. The whole ensemble is usually called “kit” or “strip”.
Oh, US jerseys have manufacturer logos on them, which is the same as the Adidas stuff you’re complaining about.
It’s not prominently stuck on the chest of the jersey, not in baseball anyway. It’s much more discreetly placed, which is how a manufacturer’s logo is on any clothes I wear.