Universal Padding Fit Kit vs MCB67 Umpire's Leg Guards: which is safer?
Easton Universal Padding Fit Kit is our pick: better on PFAS and on the overall hazard picture.
Our pick
Easton
Universal Padding Fit Kit
PFAS grade
Good 65/100
Overall grade
Poor 43/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 4
Material
foam padding, elastic straps
Confidence
72%
PossiblePolyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs)
PossibleAdhesive leachables
PossibleElastic synthetic fiber irritation
MacGregor
MCB67 Umpire's Leg Guards
PFAS grade
Bad 20/100
Overall grade
Bad 0/100
Verdict
Skip
Hazard flags
⚑ 2
Material
Padded nylon/polyester with moisture-resistant treatment
Confidence
55%
LikelyMoisture-resistant coating degradation and inhalation
PossibleIrritation from undisclosed additives in padding
Where these two actually differ
- We flag Polyurethane foam off-gassing (VOCs), Adhesive leachables, Elastic synthetic fiber irritation and Foam fragmentation and inhalation on the Easton and not on the MacGregor.
- We flag Moisture-resistant coating degradation and inhalation and Irritation from undisclosed additives in padding on the MacGregor and not on the Easton.
- The Easton is foam padding, elastic straps where the MacGregor is Padded nylon/polyester with moisture-resistant treatment, which is most of the difference in these two grades.
- The gap is 45 points, wide enough that this is not a close call, and the Easton is the one to buy.
Both products run through the same public rubric: materials, coatings, brand disclosure, lab findings, and recalls, plus a beyond-PFAS hazard analysis. Grades are model-based estimates, not lab tests. How grades work →
More sports equipment padding: see the full ranking