Liverpool have just announced their most expensive signing ever in Florian Wirtz, but why can’t they reveal his squad number and show him in the new kit?In the modern era of football, summer transfers and the publicity surrounding their announcements have taken on great importance.For sponsors and partners, this is a moment to have their name in plain sight for millions. Adidas, Liverpool’s new kit-makers, would have hoped to be front and centre this summer.Instead, however, Jeremie Frimpong and Wirtz have been photographed in the 2024/25 Nike kit.This is because Liverpool’s current kit deal with Nike doesn’t expire until August 1, at which point Adidas will take over.Until that point, the Reds cannot use Adidas shirts as part of official business.You may ask why this scenario doesn’t happen more often when teams switch kit suppliers.The reason is that kit deals usually expire at the end of the season, allowing the new manufacturer’s gear to be worn in pre-season.However, due to the pandemic extending the 2019/20 campaign, the start date for Nike’s takeover from New Balance was delayed.This has meant the changeover date five years on is also later in the year, August 1. Wirtz and Frimpong have been officially unveiled as Liverpool players, but the club have chosen not to make their new squad numbers public.This is believed to have been decided to prevent fans from buying replica shirts of the old Nike kit with the new signings’ names on the back.Instead, Adidas will launch on August 1 with the likes of Frimpong and Wirtz ready to be printed on the kits.However, muddying the waters is the fact that Liverpool have three friendlies to play before August 1, leading to the question of what numbers the new signings will wear for those matches, given the Reds will be playing in their old Nike kits.At Bayer Leverkusen, Frimpong wore No. 30, which is available at Liverpool, whereas Wirtz’s previous shirt, No. 10, is currently held by Alexis Mac Allister. At one point, it was thought that the companies would reach an agreement to terminate Nike’s contract early, but this never came to pass.Nike imposed the same problem on Man United in 2015, when they were forced to play in the previous season’s kit on their tour of the USA.On that occasion, though, they didn’t have to grapple with the conundrum of announcing the club’s record signing in an ‘old’ kit.