You can’t watch a football game (or rugby or cricket) in England without being bombarded by advertising. There are logos all over the players shirts, on the hoardings around the ground, even on the pitch itself. We have the “Barclays” Premiership, the "EON"sponsored FA cup, the “Carling” Cup etc. It seems not a trick is missed.
However, whenever I’ve seen US sport I see a lot less advertising. NFL and baseball don’t have shirt sponsorship (I think?) and there generally seem to be fewer adverts around the grounds. And AFAIK it’s not yet the “Coca-Cola” Super Bowl or the “McDonalds” World Series.
America pioneered the commercialisation of sport, so why does it appear these revenue streams are not being exploited?
Do televised soccer matches in England include commercial breaks? I recall hearing a few years back that they did not. If that’s true, than the logos everywhere are to make up for the loss in revenue from not airing commercials, and that the NFL has way more advertising when you factor in stretching a two hour game to four and a half hours with commercial breaks.
American sports want to maintain the purity of the sport.
This opinion brought to you by Gillette, Viagra, Budweiser, Axe Body Spray, Cialis, Old Spice, Miller Genuine Draft, Enzyte, Coke, Burger King and Old Spice.
Seriously, what 2ply said is about all there is to it. Also, see NASCAR and MLS for American sports that wear their logos on their sleeves.
On the commercial (i.e. non-BBC) channels they do show commercials, but they can only do this at half-time during the game so there is nothing during the two 45 minute halfs.
But still. The answers here seem to be that the NFL gets enough revenue from advertising so doesn’t need any more. Seriously? Someone offers them $1m a season to put a company name on their shirt and they say “nah mate, don’t need the money”?
I believe league rules restrict it. Or if not that, then some lingering sense of restraint. I know the Dallas Cowboys practice jersey’s have ATT logos, and if there was ever somebody willing to sell out for a buck, it’s Jerry Jones. So either he isn’t allowed to find his own sponsors (and he lead the league in doing so a while ago - getting Pepsi to be the official drink of the Cowboys when the NFL was sponsored by Coke or something similar) or he thinks that fewer people will buy Cowboys gear with a logo other than the star on it.
1 million is chump change, but whatever the amount, the teams themselves are a brand. They’ve made the desicion not to put advertising on the uniforms, partially because there alraedy is advertising on it, and partially because fans here would freak.
They still have endorsement deals. Reebok, I believe, makes ALL NFL apparel, and all coaches and players have to wear that stuff. It’s just a different arrangement. Also, most stadiums are named by advertisers.
Here in DC when listening to the Nationals play I get to hear things like “From the AT&T studios affiliated with CBS broadcasting we’re taking calls about the game on the McDonalds Sports Hotline!”
During football the “reply cam” is normally sponsored by some insurance company or some shit.
Basically, US sports franchises are socialist while European sports franchises are capitalist.
The NFL gets its money from attendance and TV contracts. They don’t want individual franchises from selling ads, since that would cause conflict with the TV ads. A sign for Ford on the field won’t be liked if Chevrolet is doing an add immediately after it’s shown. There are merchandising deals, but the NFL knows that the ads would be perceived in a bad light, so they limit what can be shown (pretty much a normal logo).
Game jerseys are among the few things in the NFL in which the many sponsors do not play a role (other than the logos of the official uniform maker (Reebok) and official helmet maker (Riddell)).
A number of teams now have sponsor logos on their practice jerseys, but, as those aren’t visible during games, I imagine those aren’t expensive sponsorships (the Packers, for example, have a local hospital as their practice-uniform sponsor).
It used to be that you never got advertising on soccer uniforms here, but it gradually crept in the the '80s. That (later 70s-early 80s) was a bad time for football. Attendances were declining, families stopped going because of the violence & poor facilities, stadiums had no money to invest in upgrading. Then pay-to-view TV was devised, they signed up exclusive rights to screen the games, paid far more than the BBC or ITV could hope to match, and football was awash with money.
I don’t know about the OP, but I see those ads all the time in NFL games. But it’s a TV thing which, I guarantee, is mandated by the NFL.
If you’re at the stadium, you’ll see ads for GM/Ford/ATT/Verizon/etc all over the place - in the tunnels, on the scoreboard, etc. But these ads are notably missing on the field and in the sidelines, which of course is where the TV cameras will focus for 98% of the game.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the field and sidelines are free of advertising: There is a huge team logo on the field. Each of the end zones are branded with the team names and colors. The sidelines are constantly plastered with signage about the NFL, the team, etc. The uniforms and helmets are branded. When you think about it, there’s barely an inch of free space that’s not branded… but what you see on TV is going to be branded with the NFL product only.
And this is not a mistake nor is it a “missed opportunity.” It keeps the purity of the brand, which is more important (imho) than maximizing revenues. Look at the NASCAR brand and how it is diluted and has to fight among it’s very sponsors for recognition and camera space. The NFL doesn’t want that.
The above is all imho, of course. But take a look at some NFL stadium shots - you’ll see the signage the OP is asking for, but not on the field or the sidelines.
It’s weird, considering the interminable amount of commercials, but for some reason the NFL and MLB have decided that ads on jersey are a bridge too far. I remember 5 or so years ago MLB mooted the idea and fans got in an uproar. Personally, I find that once you get used to them, jerseys kind of look empty without sponsorships. In MLS, some teams have them and some don’t. The ones that don’t have them seem to be missing something.
In the NFL, it would be hard for the teams to have a jersey sponsor. It could conflict with the player’s personal endorsement/sponsorship. What if Indy decides to have a Toshiba jersey logo but Peyton has a personal deal with Sony?
I think another reason its accepted in soccer is because in almost every league around the world, teams only stay in the major leagues if they are successful, or they get relegated. And to be successful and not get demoted (or to get promoted), you need money to buy players. So, its perfectly acceptable to have a sponsor on your jersey in order to earn much needed funds. This is why NASCAR relies so much on sponsors---- in NASCAR, if you don’t win races, you don’t get automatic spots in future races, and your race team fades away, Getting money from sponsors to keep your seat is one way to prevent that, so its not looked down upon.
Contrast this to MLB, NBA, NHL AND NFL where there is no promotion or relegation, and no matter how bad your team blows, you still get to play in the big leagues next year. Putting sponsors names on a jersey would be perceived by most fans as cynical and frankly, would probably kill merchandise sales.
Now, theres no promotion or relegation in MLS either, but MLS allows sponsors on their kits because its seen in soccer around the world, so doesn’t shock the fans, and MLS draws small crowds and small TV contracts, and really does need the sponsorship[ money more than the $ major sports.
One other minor thing I’ve noticed is that, while it’s mentioned above that every replay, highlight, and on-field interview is sponsored by some company in the US sports, when I watch English (and other European) matches, I don’t think this is the case. I may be wrong in part because I think there’s both an international tv feed in the English language and a tv feed in England for the same match, and the international feed generally doesn’t have announcers giving any sponsorship names during a match…except the Barclays Premiership and the like.
Also, regarding players with sponsorships with one company that contrasts with another, the biggest Nike star right now is Cristiano Ronaldo, who plays for Real Madrid, which has its uniform/kit made by adidas. The biggest adidas star right now is Lionel Messi, who plays for Barcelona, which has its uniform/kit made by Nike. Reebok currently makes the NFL uniforms (I think this ends after 2011, but I’m not positive), and most big names in the NFL wear Nike. It happens, and it doesn’t seem to be a big deal.
English stadiums don’t tend to be named after companies, either. And the “World Series” was originally named for its sponsor, the World.
I think El Presidente is right, though, greater competitive pressures in association football.
ETA: about jerseys seeming to have something missing when they have no sponsors, two teams with no sponsors are Peterborough and Barcelona, and they both have things on their instead, Peterborough have the team’s nickname on the front, Barca have the UNICEF logo.
Some American teams have dipped their toes in it. The ever present Nike decal. Baseball tried painting its bases with a “web” a few years ago to promote a Spiderman movie. Got the usual denunciations of the “end of the sport” by some senile sports writers.
NASCAR cars need sponsor decals (and the ever present plugs by the drivers) because of the business model. The tracks and NASCAR (which many times are the same) get the revenue. There is not enough money from winnings to pay to run a team. Many teams there is not enough money period. NASCAR is not made up of a bunch of team owners forming a league. It was the France family in the 1940s forming an organization, telling teams, drivers and manufacturers what the rules were or else (not to mention those few pesky drivers who tried to join the teamsters union. They got blacklisted and the courts upheld it since they are “independent contractors”.>
It could also be that NASCAR got advertising when it was still a barely scene sport. Only a few tape delay broadcasts on TV. No live and complete races until the late 1970s.
I think besides fan/press reaction, the stick and ball sports don’t do it because they can’t figure out how to split the money. Rather than get in an internal fight about that, don’t bring it into the house.
