Yeah, Wells Fargo don’t have to pay big fees to use a Mexico kit in an ad when they’re already a team sponsor... that’s the whole point of them being a sponsor already? Mexico did not make “10-20M” from that ad, or a WF ad campaign. Donovan got a fee, sure... but that money did not go to Mexico, or the US, or his club team. It was negotiated through his agent and itwent to him. I know because I’ve reached out to athletes and been involved in negotiations for similar advertising/image rights deals before So if you think Chelsea is reaping million dollar payments (or anything, frankly) when Pulisic appears in a Nike shoot, or a World Cup commercial, or a beer ad... you are way off.
How much do you think they pay the Mexico team for the right to use their kit in the several ads where they have done so? Or you think they don't pay them anything? What do you think being a team sponsor means?
There is however something wrong with being wildly misinformed on the monetary compensation Chelsea stand to gain from “marketing opportunities” featuring a new signing. I’ve worked on these deals before, albeit not with European soccer stars, but you don’t work out payment with the Miami Heat or the Spurs... you work it out with Wade and Kawhi Leonard. I’m open to being shown I’m wrong. But your speculation isn’t sufficient. I can almost guarantee you image rights issues for use in commercials are worked into their overall sponsorship deal. Just like Chelsea don’t get 50% of each Pulisic jersey sold! They get instead a fat yearly fee negotiated with Nike, and that deal allows them to selland market Chelsea kits without constantly paying Chelsea outside of that fee. So... to demonstrate that the signing of Pulisic will have an impact on how big that fee will be the next time heir deal is up, you’re really going to have to show your work! Last post. We just agree ot disagree regarding your premise, for which there is no real evidence. Where’d you get 10-20M from? Just made it up?
Companies want to sell their products. Companies sign sponsorship deals with clubs that have players who can help them sell their products. Pulisic is one such player. Everybody happy. Unless he flops. Then everybody unhappy.
That is a far cry from “Chelsea get 10-20M from a Tesla ad campaign featuring Pulisic”. But yeah, marketability matters in merchandise and it matters in any fundraising, like summer tours. We agree there.
I'm fairly certain that the clubs usually get a slice of the image rights. Chelsea will be getting paid every time Pulisic does an ad like that.
I found this written by Daniel Geey. 1. What are Image Rights (IR) and why are they relevant to the football industry? From a variety of commercial deals I have advised on a player’s image can include a player’s name, nicknames, likeness, image, photograph, signature, autograph, initials, statements, endorsement, physical details, voice and other personal characteristics. The idea is that the above descriptions include everything that may form part of that player’s image for the player and/or his club to then market accordingly. Although practically speaking there is no such thing as a specific image right (I’ll save the legal detail for another day!), a club and/or brand will be paying a player to endorse and promote a number of specific commercial deals. As commercial drivers push football into the entertainment and brand space, clubs are looking for a variety of ways to ‘monetise’ and grow their revenue base. As such, clubs are entering into a multitude of commercial partnerships whereby brands want to be associated with clubs and their high-profile players. 2. How do IR agreements work in practice? Under, for example, the standard Premier League employment contract that each Premier League player enters into with his club, certain provisions allow for a club to use a number of its players to promote the club’s sponsors. It is however quite limited in scope (for example, the contract typically states “the Club’s use of the Player’s Image must not be greater than the average for all first team players” ). So if a club does not have a separate image rights agreement in place with its star players it would be difficult to use, say Daniel Sturridge’s image with the majority of the club’s commercial partners because that is not generally permitted under a player’s standard employment contract. And more importantly, the club’s commercial partners would probably want to use Daniel’s image more than perhaps one of the first team squad players who would be less recognisable in other markets. So the reality is if Liverpool want to use the image across a range of sponsorship opportunities, then it becomes pretty vital for the club to contract separately with the player through an image rights deal to have control of those rights to endorse particular products and services – and if the player owns his image through a company, the club will need to contract with that company. 3. Why do Clubs and players enter into IR Deals? Football players are taxed through HMRC’s pay as you earn scheme (PAYE). This means tax is deducted at the time of payment by the club. Premier League and Football League players will pay 45% tax on earnings over £150,000 (as well as 2% National Insurance Contributions). If a club is making a payment to an image rights company rather than a salary payment through the PAYE system, the player is not being taxed on that income at 45% but rather is paying corporation tax of 20% (falling to 18% by 2020). From a club’s perspective, it does not have to pay employers national insurance contributions at 13.8% on payments to the player’s image rights companies either. The national insurance savings for a Premier League club with 25 first team players with a strong commercial programme and a raft of commercial partners can be considerable. By way of headline example, and without going into the detail, if a player is paid £1.8m per year before tax is deducted and the club puts in place an image rights structure with its players, the club could save up to £190,000 in tax payments per player per year. Whilst in the past, many including HMRC had seen this type of arrangement as a way to reduce tax payable by both the player and the club, more recently HMRC, as will be discussed below, has become more accepting of such arrangements within certain limits. 4. Why have image rights deals been seen as controversial? During the early 2000s many clubs entered into a large image rights contracts but came unstuck. This was primarily because teams agreed image rights deals with players who sometimes did not really have an image to commercialise. It was viewed by HMRC as a ruse for clubs to reduce their tax payments. If a player had a £1m per year image rights deal, the tax authorities quite rightly were interested to understand how that deal had been valued and how the club had exploited those rights as part of its wider commercial strategy. Similarly, in an extreme example, if a reserve keeper at a Championship club, was being paid a large percentage of his overall package through an image rights deal, questions may be asked as to the commercial justification of such a deal. As such, HMRC investigated a large number of clubs and it is believed that almost all Premier League clubs for the period ending 2010 entered into settlement arrangements. Many clubs paid large sums to resolve the matter. 5. Is there a ‘deal’ in place with HMRC? HMRC recognise that image rights contracts, if properly structured are legitimate ways to structure payments to players in return for endorsing particular products and services. Clubs continue to understand that their star players are marketable assets off the field too. Given the popularity of Premier League and matches being broadcast to almost every country in the world, sponsors and commercial partners are keen to engage with high profile clubs. HMRC have offered a solution to all Premier League clubs, which contains two “caps”. The club cap (Stage 1 Cap) states that clubs can make maximum total image rights payments to all image rights companies of 15% of commercial income. If commercial income is £80m therefore, the maximum payments to image rights companies are £12m. The player cap (Stage 2 Cap) is 20% of the total salary payments made to a player in the tax year. Clubs need to write to HMRC if they want to take up the image rights offer. The questions HMRC will continue to ask may include the total percentage of the player’s overall package that is paid to the player’s image rights company and how the club is using those rights accordingly. The days of over 20% of a player’s total package being provided by way of image rights payments by clubs to players is long gone in all but exceptional circumstances. So long as clubs can reasonably justify image rights payments to its players through commercial opportunities, which are likely to be closer to 20% of the players total playing contract, more image rights deals will continue to be entered into, benefiting both clubs and players alike.
CP's talk about his nagging injuries sort of corroborates why JBL has been used so extensively. While Sancho has been impressive this year and earned his spot, JBL has been very, very average. Hopefully this break helps CP fully heal and earn his starting spot back. Would love to see him move from Borussia with a BL title to his resume.
Zorc on Pulisic: "That decision was taken, and it then came to pass over the last few months. It wasn't a case of talks with Chelsea starting at Christmas and being concluded on New Year's Eve -- this had been going on for weeks if not to say months." Seems it's been made clear for at least a little while Pulisic was intent on moving elsewhere. That probably has played into Favre favoring BVB's longer term committed players.
Yes, there have been rumors that an EPL move this upcoming summer has been planned since Christian signed his extension a couple years ago.
Any chance that we can get back to the topic at hand for this thread, which really has very little to do with marketing rights. The Chelsea transfer was for strictly footballing reasons and how many shirts shoes etc he might sell has ********all to do with that.
It would be wrong to think that marketing had nothing to do with it but it would be far far more wrong to think that they’d spend that much on a player that they didn’t think could/would succeed and be an integral part of the first team. This isn’t Matt Miazga’s agent getting a favor. Pulisic is seen as the complete package. He’s young, talented, has room to grow, fits Sarri’s system but is also multi demensional and could be/is a massive marketing chip. People should be focusing on the first pieces of the puzzle more than the last one but the last one does have a place in the puzzle.
And what he said just after that, that Pulisic wanted the move to take place this summer so he'd have a full summer training in front of Sarri is really impressive.
This tells me a few things. 1 - He's a lot more mature than what some people might give him credits for. 2 - He's not in a hurry to get out of Dortmund, he wants to finish business there. 3 - He's not leaving because of bad blood, nothing is wrong with this current situation with Dortmund. This has nothing to do with his recent drop in minutes, otherwise he would be on the plane out in Jan. He simply want to move onto the next challenge and chapter in his life.
So you say! It gets pretty tired listening to the same old ridiculous talking points that have been shown to be farcical numerous times. Massive marketing chip is a massive overstatement. Carry on, my bad, I should have known better than to come here and find out if there was anything new about our boy.
If the marketing of an American player would yield such a high ROI, then our historical transfer fees wouldn't be as pathetic as they are. Was the pro-American marketing tax included in Tyler Adams' 3M fee? I btw think he's worth more than that but that's a different discussion. It would not even apply at Chelsea unless Pulisic is a regular in the 1st team and they project him as legit first XI down the road. And that goes back to the quality they see in him. Which again points to the fee being about the player's quality and upside. They see him as a building block for the future as they revamp with youth. As an aside, I think the Pulisic family blueprint ends in La Liga. Who knows if he's ever good enough to reach that level but everything coming out suggests the Bund was planned as a first step and the Prem as the 2nd step. But Pulisic was a major Figo fan and loves La Liga. Had three training stints at La Masia as a teen. Prove yourself at a side like Chelsea and it will get the attention of the La Liga heavyweights.
I don’t think saying he could be/is a massive marketing chip is an overstatement. He’s a huge marketing chip currently and if he keeps improving he’s gonna be a massive chip. The US is ready for a breakout player on the largest stage. This could finally be it. Yea there’s no new news on him. It’s just spinning tires right now.
Christian Pulisic Says Chelsea Style Played Role in Transfer Decision https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si...pulisic-borussia-dortmund-chelsea-sarri-style