And in prominent place on the black jersey will be a silver fern.
New Zealand sporting teams are obviously associated with the silver fern; the country's netball team is even commonly known as the Silver Ferns.
Our sporting heroes past and present are recognised globally by the silver fern prominent on a black singlet.
Kiwis, the name by which New Zealanders are known around the world, are proud of their name and the silver fern and, for many years, debate has been around whether the silver fern should be part of the country's flag.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister John Key announced the country would hold a referendum within three years asking whether or not to change the flag design should National be re-elected.
The first election promise he has kept is announcing this week a referendum will be held late next year to allow voters to choose the most preferred alternative flag design from three or four options.
In April the following year, voters will get to choose between the winning alternative flag design and the current flag.
If Mr Key is looking for a distraction from dirty politics, this will be it.
Spending about $26 million on a flag referendum - whether the current flag is changed or not - has raised plenty of hackles in the community.
Not the least of criticism comes from returned servicemen and women.
Mr Key used a speech at the annual RSA conference in Wellington to talk about his ideas for a flag, something which did not find wide favour among conference attendees, according to reports.
Soldiers have fought and died under the flag, and some in the services hold the national flag dear.
Some would say that the flag does not have a particularly appealing description: a defaced Blue Ensign with four stars representing the Southern Cross.
In a note released with his proposal, Mr Key says the flag was adopted in 1902 and since the 1960s, New Zealanders have been debating whether it should be replaced. The flag has been changed previously.
The Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand was replaced by the Union Jack, and then the New Zealand Ensign was officially adopted.
Proponents for change argue the national flag is too similar to the flag of Australia and the two are often confused and as a defaced Blue Ensign, the national flag alludes to New Zealand being a colony or part of the United Kingdom.
The national flag is also said to ignore New Zealand's Maori heritage.
Opponents of change say the national flag has stood the test of time and proposals focus too much on Maori and Pacific designs when much of New Zealand's heritage is Anglo-Saxon and Celtic.
A campaign to force a referendum on the flag was abandoned in 2005 for lack of support, but Mr Key is determined to proceed.
His favoured silver fern on a black background has gone on the backburner, as it is now seen as too close to the flag used by Islamic State jihadists.
But there will be some who long for the wide national sporting identity of the fern to be seen on any new flag.
Two things will continue to create debate outside of the final flag design - the cost, and whether Mr Key will actually abide by the referendum result.
The Government led by Mr Key completely ignored 2012 Electoral Commission MMP recommendations of the one electorate seat threshold being abolished and that the party vote threshold should lowered from 5% to 4% - mainly because it did not suit National's electoral aspirations of the time.
Voters very firmly made their intentions clear on MMP, which cost them about $11 million, only to see their preferences ignored.
Spending $26 million or more on the change of a flag is a risk for Mr Key.
Diverting attention away from damaging political reports only for the views of Kiwis to be ignored again would be a dangerous tactic which may well backfire.
