European soccer is well on its way to turning players into stock cars, I don't think that's a really great image when you're trying to sell the sport to Americans who aren't used to having their jersey covered in ads. You and I can see a jersey, notice the sponsor and know who's kit that is, the regular American sports fan doesn't get that connection. I can't remember how many "Dreamcast" jerseys I saw and the owners didn't even know what the team is! I just don't think we should do it if we don't need to. I don't think its a statement as far as "getting it" as a club. Even if that is the case our club is hardly in a traditional situation. I'ts not like the team is about to go under. I think, like has already been alluded to in this thread, is that we're going to wait until we have a DP and/or new stadium to use as leverage with an advertiser. The amount of money the team can sell that ad space for with a Figo or similar donning the jersey is far more and a great PR move for the team and the sponsor.
Good grief. If there's one thing to know about the modus operandi of the Revolution it's that they do things their own way and by no means feel compelled to "follow the leader" when it comes to things like this. They've never apologized for this and never will, much to people's chagrin. Personally, I think that this isn't a priority for the Revolution, and based on some previous business decisions, the Revolution are probably asking for something in terms of a sponsorship figure that's too rich for the blood of most potential suitors; it has to be worth the sponsor's while, not just the Revolution's. I'd be surprised to see movement on this anytime soon. The Magpie
While I'm pretty indifferent to the idea of shirt sponsors, this point is silly. Kraft may be weathy, but he's not running the Revs out of charity -- they are a business investment and he's not going to spend money on the team unless he can get something out of it. He's certainly not going to willingly dump his own money into the team unless it would stand to increase his profits. That is true whether Kraft were a trillionaire or merely a millionaire. A shirt sponsor would increase the revenue that the team generates. The more revenue the team makes, the more revenue that Kraft can spend on the team (whether directly on players, or on coaches, or on scouting, whatever) without spending his own money. That's a good thing, as Kraft should spend more money on the team.
His 'thriftiness' and 'frugality' with regards to the club show that he is a smart businessman. Look at the extra revenue streams he already has generated that few other MLS clubs have: The money from the sale of Clint Dempsey and untold amounts of unused cap space. And he hasn't had to spend one dime in marketing expenses to get either of those revenue streams. Smart businessman indeed.
That mock up jersey is pretty close to the old Revolution one I saw on ebay a few months ago. There was a Pepsi patch on the arm, a 6" Bic patch on the back, and right under the # was a huge 12" Snickers patch.
Let's back up a second and have a little "economic history of soccer" tutorial Unlike traditional American professional sports, soccer does not have multiple natural (baseball) breaks or multiple unnatural TV timeouts (football, basketball) because the game is 2 uninterrupted 45 minute halves. Many people once argued that this was the major reason why soccer "wouldn't work" in the US because we couldn't stop the game for ads. When European soccer wanted to raise more money, they didn't have the option that North American sports did, namely just have more of the TV timeouts. BTW, in the early TV days of baseball, there was only a 60 second break between each half inning. Now it's pretty close to 3 minutes. THIS is why there are 4 hour baseball games! The only way that soccer could raise more advertising money without stopping the game was having "passive" visuals that you HAD to watch to see the game: signboards, shirt sponsorships, or later the moving graphics for 10 seconds (while still watching action) which the MFL (I believe) pioneered in the 80s and 90s, and finally the sponsor's logo in the corner of the TV screen for 5 or 10 minutes at a time. What I find astounding about this thread is that, in a society that is literally inundated with millions of commercial images 24/7, some of you are making an aesthetic argument about how a shirt sponsorship will "spoil" your appreciation of the game. To put it in old fashioned terms, "that horse has left the barn." I think accepting all of the commercial soccer "traditions" (signboards, shirt sponsorships, etc.) is MORE than worth it if we get to watch the game the way it was made to be played (2 x 45) and still generate the revenue so people like Kraft can afford to buy the best players so we can enjoy the beautiful game. So Krafty, get a shirt sponsor, cash the check, and buy a DP!
We'll get a sponsor after we have a DP. Setting the bar higher for the first shirt sponsor with benefit the team greatest.
I very much agree. A good businessman is looking to get revenue from every possible source, whether it's buying low and selling high (Dempsey), keeping overhead low (total salary paid), or bringing in as much in sponsorship dollars as possible. To think that the Krafts would turn away any opportunity to earn additional money just because they have money to just stupid. Whether I earn $30k a year or $30mil a year, I'm going to take an extra few million if offered and if it makes since for my business. Waiting for the right deal to come around is fine, but I would suspect that the Revs won't be able to get as much as DC got, but should get more than RSL. I don't care whether there is a sponsor on the jersey or not. I am curious to know if/when it will happen and who the sponsor will be. If the Krafts truely view the Revs as a tax writeoff, as is so often mentioned on these boards, then a charity (like Barca does) would be fantastic. I would be happy to support the NE Jimmy Funds.
Sam Adams would be a natural shirt sponsor. Got the Revolutionary Era name and it is a good beer. Sounds like an exacta to me.
Save for the fact that the core composition of Revolution supporters (read: "season ticket-holders") are suburban families and youth soccer players, which isn't exactly the demographic Sam Adams markets to. Someone suggested Hood milk a year or so ago, which would seem a better fit IMHO. The Magpie
The only thing I've seen says that only online gambling sites and hard liquor sponsorships are not allowed. I think this is right. Right now I feel like we'd get between $1.5m - $2m a year over about 4 years. With a designated player I think that number would jump to closer to $2.5m - $3m. Over a four year period that'd make a $3m difference. And with the fact that the Revs have been looking to add a Designated Player, my guess is that preliminary talks with sponsors have already been started and soon after a DP signing, we'll see a shirt sponsor announced.
well I hope you know that it wasn't a legitimate jersey because the Revs have never had snickers as a sponsor, and the bic and pepsi sponsorships never interfered with one another as they were used in entirely different seasons.
I can't prove you either right or wrong but I don't think attendance will drop if the REVs get a shirt sponser assuming they do it even marginally tastefully. Certainly it can't drop by more than 7K or so... I am floored at the values you just threw out. Are other teams getting that? To put it in other terms they could get between .6 and .8 of the the salary cap without a DP? From just a Jersey sponsorship? Wow!!! For me, I would like the REVs and all MLS teams to be profitable because I believe that generally helps my team and the league overall. Yes, some profit will be pocketed but (hopefully) the salary cap and roster size will grow too. Some investor/owners might invest that profit in a SSS because, coupled with concerts and other events, they see it as a way to make EVEN MORE Money. In short, profit will (should?) improve my team and the league. And Jersey sponsorship seems like a pretty benign (to me the fan) way to inch toward (higher) profitability. I have no idea if any if any of that applies to the super secretive REVs under Kraft ownership. Maybe they are already as profitable as they want to be. Hard to imagine.
From The Magpie from Ridge Mahoney: Herbalife - LA Galaxy: $3.5 - 5 million per year Volkswagen - DC United: $3.1 - 3.7 million per year Best Buy - Chicago: $2.3 - 2.7 million per year Comex - Chivas USA: $1.5 - 2 million per year BMO- Toronto: $1 - 1.5 million per year Glidden - Columbus: $800,000 per year Amigo Energy - Houston: $7.5 million over four years XanGo - Real Salt Lake: $1 - 1.25 million per year Red Bull - New York Red Bulls: Unknown So the $1.5m - $2m seems to be toward the top a little bit, but certainly not too far out of reach. And I think we could totally be in the Chicago/DC United range if we were to sign a designated player. So yes, we if we got a pretty decent sponsorship we could pay for our salary cap.
Article in today's USA Today -- http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2008-05-07-referee-scrutiny_N.htm Interesting statement at the bottom of the article re: VW: "The five-year deal, though, is a leaguewide sponsorship. Volkswagen will be involved with everything from stadium presence to grass-roots efforts." I have no idea what that means but assume that there's a revenue sharing with the league. Any idea if that is the norm with these kind of deals?
Well, there's two components there. 1. The VW deal with MLS is separate from the deal with DC United, but obviously was all agreed upon together. The shirt sponsorship is directly with the team (though of course with single entity, the team is simply a division of MLS anyway), but there is also a leaguewide deal to be the official automobile company (replacing Honda which stopped their sponsorship last season). This is not unique (Glidden is also a league sponsor in addition to sponsoring the Crew jersey for example) but a company can sponsor a team jersey without becoming a leaguewise sponsor so it's not necessarily typical either. 2. In general, jersey deals are with the team, but MLS in general gets a cut. I believe (though I might be off) that MLS gets the first $500K per year and the team gets the rest. So if DCU's deal with VW is $3M per year, then the team directly gets to keep $2.5M (and can use that to pay their portion of a DP's salary or whatever).
Which differs from the past, when you had to be a major league sponsor (IIRC, the term was "partner") to get a patch on the back of a team's shirt.
When I bought my Jersey for a brasilian choice, you got to chose between a shirt with sponsor or a higher priced one without it. You could think about it as paying a premium to not have some ugly ad on the front, or receive a discount by having the ad and getting the cheaper price. I went for the much nicer version without the sponsor. If the revs get one, I will run out to buy a jersey before its forced upon me.
...and we have a winner. Anemic marketing, spotty jersey availablity outside the Patriots' ProShop, and the team's overall low profile in the local sports market can't have companies knocking down the doors at Revs' HQ. Bingo. The jersey isn't "clean." I'd rather see a company logo on the front than the awful mid-90's "gnarly skater" wordmark to be totally honest. Does the team "need" the money? Well, yes, Kraft has a lot of money but he hasn't exactly been forthcoming in spending it on raising the team's profile. Having a dedicated Revs-only sponsor would be of some benefit to the team. We could only hope they'd take the investment seriously and maybe *gasp* promote the team. Americans don't seem to have a problem with NASCAR, which is one of the biggest sporting businesses in the country. Rightly or wrongly jersey sponsors are part of soccer. Americans understand that while ads on jerseys aren't part of baseball, basketball, ice hockey, or American football that it is part of NASCAR. They can grasp that different sports have different traditions. Besides the league has been trying to get Joe Sixpack interested for years and it hasn't really worked. Foreign soccer fans, who the league should be trying to market to first, do understand that jersey sponsors are a neccessary evil in the sport.