I have had these shoes for just two weeks, but their wear and tear resembles a product that has been used for two years. I have played two matches and had one training session, and yet they look as if they have been through a "war."

Dear Nike, how can I focus on the positives when I have invested 50-60 euros and the result is disappointing? It would be better not to release budget options if they cannot last. In the past, with this amount of money, I would buy shoes that lasted for two seasons, and I would change them by choice, not by necessity.

The negatives of the model:

• Comfortable and lightweight, yes, but that's it.
• The outer part looks like it has spent a year on fields full of dirt and stones.
• The inner lining is clearly cheap and of poor quality.
• The studs are already wearing down or coming off, making them dangerous.

Anyone who has even casually engaged with football knows well what a good shoe is like. I have bought shoes for 40 euros and was satisfied. However, after this purchase, unfortunately, I will be thinking about which model to avoid next time.

Nike, you know the tough conditions of Greek fields and our demands. If the quality of this series is the same as the Mercurial, Tiempo, etc., then we will probably turn to Adidas or Puma for the next season.

Take a look at the academies and the fields. We need shoes that can endure and support, even at 50 euros.