Footie fans: Does the sponsor of your team matter to you?

I know that not all clubs can be Barca or Aston Villa, magnanimously flaunting their do-gooder status. However, it seems that some of the sponsors of football teams can be somewhat embarrassing to wear on your shirt.

So, do you get annoyed when your team gets a decidedly down-market sponsor? Do you refrain from purchasing a shirt until someone better comes along? Or does this issue never even enter your mind?

I know that as an American, I probably have a different image of most of these brands but the following shirts strike me as mildly embarrassing to downright mortifying:

Atletico Madrid and Fiorentina: Kia and Toyota are good enough automobiles, but they still seem jarring on a shirt.

About twenty Premiership teams and Real Madrid: online casinos just strike me as tacky. Is this just an American response?

Chelsea’s old Autoglass shirt: do they really make so much from repairing windscreens to justify national advertising?

Various South American teams: I’ve seen both Walmart and Budweiser as sponsors on Argentina shirts. Granted, Walmart is actually nice in South America, but I can’t imagine wearing their advertising around.

Fullham’s Pizza Hut shirt of yore: I’m sure Pizza Hut isn’t as freighted with as much baggage for Europeans but this shirt always struck me as the worst of the worst. I wouldn’t wear it even if you paid me.

Also, do you get annoyed when your team seems to swap sponsors every year? I, for one, like knowing that Inter will have Pirelli and well, I can’t think of another long-term sponsor. I was going to say Liverpool or Celtic and Rangers. :frowning:

International, and hell yes.

Not a footie fan, but it’s something that’s been known to cause controversy. Never heard of an accepted sponshorship that particular team’s fans take offence about: proposed ones, yes (and they got rejected).

Not to me, but it apparently does to others. When we came to the US my son wore his favorite Liverpool shirt to school and we were told not to let him wear it at school again. The sponsor was Carlsberg.

I’m an American, and not a soccer fan, so my response might not matter. But, the whole idea of sponsor logos on uniforms seems really tacky to me. I don’t even like the Nike swoosh on US Olympic team unis - especially when it’s higher than the “U.S.A”.

Besides that, too many graphics on any uni is jarring and distracting - makes players look like NASCAR race cars.

Just my $.02.

I’m a Manchester United fan, and I can’t say I was thrilled to see AIG on the shirt the past couple years. When they first came on in '06, I didn’t know much about the company and wasn’t a big fan of their design. By '08, it was pretty bad. Now we’ve got Aon, which is another insurance behemoth. I really liked the old Sharp and Vodaphone designs. I thought they were simple and clean. I will admit that, as an American, I’d feel weird walking around wearing a United shirt if they were sponsored by a company like Pepsi (Boca Juniors in the past), Burger King (a Spanish team last year), or some other large, American company with brand awareness in the US. I’d feel like I’m being viewed more as a fan of the sponsor than United.

I don’t know if we’d have the same issue here in Virginia, but I don’t let my 10-year old daughter wear her Celtic “Carling” shirt to school for that reason. Fortunately, Celtic started making sponsorless shirts for kids a couple of years ago, so she has others she can wear.

As an Arsenal fan, I never minded the JVC or O2 logos, but wasn’t crazy about Sega and absolutely dislike having the current sponsor’s “Fly Emirates” on the shirts (though I still wear them). There are a few sponsors out there that would prevent me from wearing the shirt, like FC Nurnburg’s “MisterLady.” And I feel for Blackpool’s supporters, finally able to get a Premier League shirt, but with Wonga as a sponsor (a payday loan company, I believe).

It usually doesn’t bother me, especially if the colours on the sponsor match my team’s. But, sometimes the shirt and shorts lose their feel.

As long as they are not too disruptive on the shirt I don’t mind. I do think shirts look better without advertising (Barca before Unicef), which is sort of one of the things thata makes international football special.

I have lately noticed that sponsors can be an identification tool when refereing to past teams and actually become part of the ‘romantic memory’. On dutch Tv I’ve often heard people talking about the early nineties Ajax teams with the TDK sponsoring.

Maybe that’s one reason why I don’t see so much of a problem with sponsorship in football: basketball became big in Spain about the time I was in high school, and sponsors are very common and have been common there ever since. I know fans of one of the biggest basket teams, Estudiantes (Students), who handed in their membership cards when they decided to accept Adecco’s money, but except for that one case it’s viewed as normal.

Depends on the sponsor, the placement of their logo and if I intend to wear it or just collect it. Hasn’t really been a problem with any teams I’ve been a fan of so far. The San Jose Earthquakes have an Amway logo displayed prominently on the front, though, ensuring I will never purchase one (not that I was likely to, anyway). Herbalife is about as bad on the Galaxy uniform, though I do have one of those for collecting.

As another Arsenal fan, I agree–the JVC logo looked especially nice, and seems tastefully reserved compared to the huge “Dreamcast” logo of the early 00’s or the god-awful “Fly Emirates” of today. It annoys me that we’re stuck with it for the foreseeable future, even though I’m grateful for the money that it’s brought us, not to mention the new stadium (though I dislike it being named “The Emirates Stadium”–almost as bad as the NFL and NCAA corporate sponsorships in America).

I actually don’t own any shirts since the 2001-02 double season, mainly because I didn’t like the new crest (I know, I’m hard to please!). I still prefer the old crest, but I must admit that I’ve been considering purchasing this season’s shirt, even with the new crest on it, since it’s such a nice looking shirt. Shame it has the “Fly Emirates” logo blazed across the chest!

Note that my objections are more on aesthetic grounds than on the identity of the sponsor. I feel the same way about most other shirts–as long as the logo looks visually-pleasing, I generally don’t care who it’s advertising. Though it did amuse me to see the “Doritos” logo on Wolverhampton’s shirts a few years ago!