Ads on Jerseys

[Acsenray]

When that haopens, that will be when I stop taking any interest at all.

[That_Don_Guy]

@Eddie The Horrible

Yeah I saw that, but I keep getting the niggling thought that that will only be the “foot in the door”, as franchises, over time, realise that bonanza revenue streams will come in if they completely ditch the front logo (or team crest or whatever you want to call it) and replace it with, say, Vision Network, or Flinstones Chewable Vitamins.

Or Red Wing Tires, or United States Steel…

[russian_heel]

@howye

Ahem:

“Talen Energy Stadium (formerly known as PPL Park) is an American soccer-specific stadium located in Chester, Pennsylvania and is home to the Philadelphia Union of Major League Soccer.[7] The project is the result of combined commitments of $30 million from Delaware County and $47 million from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Talen Energy is the stadium’s naming rights sponsor.” Cite - Wiki

Additionally, MLS has salary restrictions in place as well.

The advantage in the salary cap leagues you mention is that many teams do not have revenue streams that allow them to spend to the cap. To what degree this is true for each team in each league is debatable. Nevertheless, no sports franchise is going to not look at potential revenue streams.

Now that you have cleared the semen out of your throat, you can re-read a sentence that you responded to:

There is no relegation in American soccer, but because its so accepted in international soccer, jersey sponsorships are fine because now its part of the game.

[Nava]

@garygnu

I can’t see the big three US leagues doing what European soccer does, with a corporate logo on jerseys with no mention of the team itself. The teams ARE a huge brand already. Fans buy Yankees jerseys, I can’t see them buying AT&T jerseys that the Yankees happen to wear.

I know I won’t. I wouldn’t buy any jersey or team apparel that has anything else on it but the team and the manufacturer.

The European teams are a big enough brand that they don’t need their name on the jerseys; the colors themselves are the brand, so unless you see people playing shirtless the biggest element on the jersey is the team’s identification (even I can recognize the basic equipment of the most famous teams and some of the secondaries, just from cultural immersion). They have an escutcheon which is part of all their uniforms (this comes quite handy specially when a team is wearing their secondary colors), but I don’t know of any that has ever worn the team’s name.

[Acsenray]

I’m not sure I buy this explanation.

(1) There are thousands of European football/soccer teams. Only a relative handful of them are “big brands.”

(2) There is a limited number of distinctive color combinations. There is no way in which just the colors can distinguish all those clubs.

(3) Unlike in American sports, the “away” uniforms for European football clubs are usually completely different—even completely different color combinations. It requires you to essentially know at least two sets of colors for each club. The tiny club crest or symbol can’t be a distinguishing factor unless you’re standing right in front of the guy.

[howye]

@russian_heel

Now that you have cleared the semen out of your throat, you can re-read a sentence that you responded to:

There is no relegation in American soccer, but because its so accepted in international soccer, jersey sponsorships are fine because now its part of the game.

Now that you have been an asshole, you can realize I was responding to your assertion that: “My problem with NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL teams is that most, not all of them play in publicly financed stadiums;”

Your beloved MLS team likewise plays in a publicly funded stadium. So how can any jersey sponsorship be ok for MLS if it is not ok for the other leagues? Because relegation does not exist? Relegation does not exist for those other leagues either. Your argument does not hold water.

Edit to Add -

Thanks for the abuse you piece of shit. Perfect example of why I hardly ever bother to actually post.

[SanVito]

@Nava

The European teams are a big enough brand that they don’t need their name on the jerseys; the colors themselves are the brand, so unless you see people playing shirtless the biggest element on the jersey is the team’s identification (even I can recognize the basic equipment of the most famous teams and some of the secondaries, just from cultural immersion). They have an escutcheon which is part of all their uniforms (this comes quite handy specially when a team is wearing their secondary colors), but I don’t know of any that has ever worn the team’s name.

Quite so, European football teams haven’t ever worn their team name blazened across their shirts, it has only ever been a crest/badge on the left breast pocket area. So the chest area has always been a blank canvas, now filled by sponsors.

International teams don’t wear sponsors logos on their shirts, although they do for training. (if you follow this link to the Nike site, you’ll see the full range of England kit, including training kit at the bottom with a car badge on it).

[RickJay]

@Nava

The European teams are a big enough brand that they don’t need their name on the jerseys; the colors themselves are the brand, so unless you see people playing shirtless the biggest element on the jersey is the team’s identification (even I can recognize the basic equipment of the most famous teams and some of the secondaries, just from cultural immersion).

There are, practically speaking, only so many color combinations. Even in the English Premier League, a smaller league than any major North American sport, you have three clubs that are blue and white, two that are red and white (and a third that is a slightly darker red and white) and three more than are red and white stripes.

In, say, Major League Baseball, there are two teams that are basically black and white, two teams that are royal blue and white, five or six that are red, white and blue, a few red and whites - I mean, there are very subtle differences between Cincinnati Red red and Washington Nationals red, but it’s REALLY subtle. If you slapped corporate logos over the team names it would rob many of the teams of their identities.

[running_coach]

@RickJay

In, say, Major League Baseball, there are two teams that are basically black and white, two teams that are royal blue and white, five or six that are red, white and blue, a few red and whites - I mean, there are very subtle differences between Cincinnati Red red and Washington Nationals red, but it’s REALLY subtle. If you slapped corporate logos over the team names it would rob many of the teams of their identities.

It won’t be that hard. It’s still the Cincinnati Verizons and the Washington T-Mobiles.

[Nava]

@Acsenray

I’m not sure I buy this explanation.

(1) There are thousands of European football/soccer teams. Only a relative handful of them are “big brands.”

(2) There is a limited number of distinctive color combinations. There is no way in which just the colors can distinguish all those clubs.

(3) Unlike in American sports, the “away” uniforms for European football clubs are usually completely different—even completely different color combinations.

You know which ones you’re watching: if Osasuna is in Segunda and Mallorca is in Primera and it’s a Primera match, the dudes with red tops and blue shorts are Mallorca.

The combinations aren’t only colors but patterns; there are many combinations I’ve seen at the lower levels which can’t be confused with anybody else (checkers, harlequins…). The similarity between some of the biggest team’s patterns has to do with the origins of the uniforms (underwear didn’t come in harlequin versions 100 years ago).

And they’re not “away” uniforms, they’re secondary uniforms. They’re only brought out when there is a possibility of confusion, which is why they have to be completely different from the primary. Athletic de Bilbao and Atlético de Madrid wear similar shirts (vertical red and white stripes) and bottoms (black for Bilbao, blue for Atlético); since they’re easily confused, if you’re watching a match between them the guys dressed normally are the home team. If either of them plays anybody whose shirts can’t be confused, everybody will be in their normal colors.

Both sets sell well, for those teams which are big enough to sell merchandise. Schools will usually define their uniforms with a reference to a big team’s equipment (“primary” or “secondary”, but with no year given): that alone can be a lot of merch sold.

[Cugel]

Started in the mid-70s in Australian rugby league
http://www.ozsportsdirect.com.au/productimages/LARGE/3662.jpg
and today-ish

[Idle_Thoughts]

@russian_heel

Now that you have cleared the semen out of your throat, you can re-read a sentence that you responded to:

There is no relegation in American soccer, but because its so accepted in international soccer, jersey sponsorships are fine because now its part of the game.

@howye

Now that you have been an asshole, you can realize I was responding to your assertion that: “My problem with NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL teams is that most, not all of them play in publicly financed stadiums;”

Your beloved MLS team likewise plays in a publicly funded stadium. So how can any jersey sponsorship be ok for MLS if it is not ok for the other leagues? Because relegation does not exist? Relegation does not exist for those other leagues either. Your argument does not hold water.

Edit to Add -

Thanks for the abuse you piece of shit. Perfect example of why I hardly ever bother to actually post.

Take it to the Pit. Do not ever call others insulting names outside of it. If someone calls you one, report the post rather than reply back with one.

[russian_heel]

I will apologize for this. I just found the “ahem” to be unnecessarily condescending but I responded poorly.

My point is whether the stadium is publicly financed or not, sponsorships on jerseys are part of soccer worldwide, so thats why MLS fans don’t bat an eye at it. Now I get someone is going to bring up basketball teams around the world with sponsors on their jersey, but

1. basketball was exported from the US to the world
2. the difference in revenue an NBA franchise generates as well as its resale value next to an MLS franchise is like comparing Donald Trump to a corner convenience store owner.

[howye]

@russian_heel

I will apologize for this. I just found the “ahem” to be unnecessarily condescending but I responded poorly.

My point is whether the stadium is publicly financed or not, sponsorships on jerseys are part of soccer worldwide, so thats why MLS fans don’t bat an eye at it. Now I get someone is going to bring up basketball teams around the world with sponsors on their jersey, but

1. basketball was exported from the US to the world
2. the difference in revenue an NBA franchise generates as well as its resale value next to an MLS franchise is like comparing Donald Trump to a corner convenience store owner.

Whether soccer jerseys around the world have ads on them or not is irrelevant. You justify a dislike of other North American leagues because of public financing of stadiums, but do not acknowledge MLS teams do so. Including the MLS team you state you support. A bit of hypocrisy you continue to not acknowledge. Yes, MLS fans accept ads on jerseys because that is what happens worldwide in the support, but that has nothing to do with financing of stadiums. I would also note that stadium ownership is by public entity in some cases, although less prevalent than in the United States.

As to basketball, comparing basketball leagues outside of the US to soccer leagues outside of the US in terms of practices, is a bit disingenuous. It is the equivalent, in terms of popularity of comparing the MLS to the NBA. No matter how popular a basketball league may be it is almost certainly a far cry from the popularity and revenue of any non-US soccer league (or at least a top-tier soccer league.) Basketball fans outside of the US accept ads on those jerseys because the see ads on the jerseys of the most popular sport in the world, soccer. US fans are not accepting in general of ads because the sports that have been most popular here for over a hundred years have not had ads. Soccer is, fairly or not, viewed as an import and its quirks are accepted. This includes ads. Someday in the near future all of this will be moot, the only real question is when and how the ads will appear. Anybody who questions it need only watch hockey video from thirty years ago and marvel at the clean ice and boards.

As to my “ahem”, it was meant as a humorous and slightly snarky method to draw your attention to a contradiction in your own statement. Condescension was not intended.