I wanted to know peoples opinions of Adidas dominance in the MLS. Everything in the league is sponsored by Adidas, whether it is jerseys, cleats, all billboards etc. Do you think it would be a good idea to open it up and allow other sponsers, like Nike and Puma, an easier avenue to have their names on jerseys and outside stadiums etc, or do you agree with Adidas dominance since they have had so much influence in helping MLS grow? (Also, I had the opportunity to talk to the marketing director at Diadora to get his opinion on this http://soccercleats101.com/2009/04/09/questions-with-diadora-soccer-usa/)
I'm not sure that's the case, Dr. D - or at least not without prior permission. I seem to remember a story about Mike Petke getting really excited about a new brand of boots only to have them red-carded by the league (although that was in the first couple of years of the Adidas deal). One way or another, my favorite Fire jersey ever was the Puma shirt from the last season before the Adidas deal, and I really miss the variety of styles and looks in the league. But, having said that, a) even the variety has come a long way since the Adidas deal started, and b) when Adidas came in we had, what, 12 teams? They committed $150 million to a twelve team league at a time when not a lot of people were buying in. So it's more than worth it to me. ... On the other hand, wasn't at least some of that money supposed to go to fund the reserve league?
Players have to wear Adidas unless they get written permission from other footwear companies, so any new players or players just under the radar can not wear their desired cleat. Very frustrating if you prefer a certain cleat/style. I agree Yukon Cornelius, they did take a very big gamble investing a huge amount in the league to get it going. I think maybe it might be time for them to relenquish some of their control and allow players to choose.
If any other sporting company wishes to put up $150 mil over 10 years to outfit the teams, then maybe this would be worthwhile. From the way it sounds, not many people remember the kind of victory that deal was viewed as.
Ah - found the article about Petke... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/sports/soccer-report-taylor-and-shoes-are-red-hot.html It's down at the bottom... Although, interestingly, it says that players get a choice of a few brands... The other side of this is that we can be pretty sure that the Beckham deal never would've happened without the Adidas deal.... whether that's a good thing or bad, and the level of influence shoemakers have over roster decisions at your favorite club, we can all debate.
When the league/teams can demand enough attention (CASH) internationally to secure lucrative individual team jersey/sponsorship deals then I'm all for the Adidas domination to end. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a legit economic reason (especially in this climate) to shrug off the deal the league has now. Just think back to the pre-deal days, I mean it may not be ideal now but at least we can buy jerseys at major retailers, t-shirts, jackets, memorabilia, etc. And thats due to the penetration Adidas has internationally in essentially every sports store from the big-box stores to the local hole-in-the-wall. Personally, I wouldn't mind seing DC United in a Man U-esque all black kit or having Umbro come in (most comfortable jerseys I've ever worn, England Umbro circa 2005) though!
Considering what Adidas does for MLS, its perfectly fine with me. Just like with single entity. While having single entity may keep teams from signing exactly who they want, its that business structure that has MLS stronger financially than most sports leagues in the world. Its the same with Adidas. With all of the financial influx and benefits that the league gets from Adidas, there's no reason to change it. But as also as with single entity, once the league gets strong enough, then Adidas' totality should be abandoned.
You should be more afraid of Adidas leaving MLS then MLS leaving Adidas. Nobody wants to see naked soccer players. All that running and no sleeves to pull on. Scary stuff.
CMIIR, but wasn't that what sealed the deal for Adidas over Nike? With the reserve league gone . . . I personally can't wait for the deal to end.
given what Nike was putting out for kits in 2004-2005 when the deal came out, the thought of Nike earning the league contract was a scary one. /pool balls for everyone!
Originally Posted by Retsam You should be more afraid of Adidas leaving MLS then MLS leaving Adidas. Nobody wants to see naked soccer players. All that running and no sleeves to pull on. Scary stuff. This is a very good point! But to be honest, I think MLS is at the stage where another team might step in. Esp since Nike have control of all things to do with national team. I have to agree that the Beckham deal would never have happened without Adidas...but lets be honest they have made a fortune in return for the deal, think of all the 'Beckham' jerseys and soccer cleats sold! It was a win-win for both parties!
First off, I love Diadora cleats. Second, your statement is only partly true. If a player had a contract with a shoe company, they can wear whatever brand of cleats that they want. Donovan wears Nike. Blanco wears some random Mexican brand I think. Brian Ching wears Puma. However, if a player does not have a shoe contract, they must wear adidas cleats or they get a fine. Last season, Greg Vanney was having a dispute with his shoe contract company (Puma). He liked the feel of the shoes, but didn't want to promote Puma while in dispute, so he put tape over the logo. MLS fined him for every game he had the tape on his shoes. You can look at the developmental players and rookies who are far less likely to get a shoe deal out of college. Those guys all wear adidas. It isn't a coincidence.
Adidas didn't terminate the reserve league. MLS did, due to the fact that they did a shitty job in setting the system up. Why be angry with Adidas? All they did was provide the funding for the program. It was MLS that screwed the pooch by doing such a poor job in terms of scheduling and roster restrictions.
Yeah, I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I think DC United with the black Nike ManU style jersey would be sweet. And apart from that I think Umbro makes really nice and comfortable jerseys that would be cool to see in the league. Poor grammar, my bad.
I disagree. I think it's the very peak of capitalism: Buy out the competition. It's not like the league just said "Hey, everyone, use ADIDAS!" What they actually said was more like, "Hey, everyone, ADIDAS gave us a buttload of money for all of you to wear there kits!"
I suppose the debate over this single entity thing has 2 sides to it. On the plus side, the league gets a big chunk of cash. I am assuming that some of it is diverted to the clubs for their own use. No club gets a significantly larger chunk than any other, maintaining parity. However, the deal stifles competition. Established players can seek out deals with other boot manufacturers, but the new guys end up with kit that they may not necessarily like, potentially harming their development. Also, clubs cannot sign up the best deal that their team can. After all, United managed to sign up Nike at $500,000,000 (roughly). However, with an open system, the "brand" clubs will be able to sign big deals, whilst the smaller clubs will lose out. Its swings and roundabouts. Both sides have good and bad points. I suppose that at the moment, the ability to guarantee league wide parity, and a REALLY LARGE amount of money is what swung it for Adidas. I guess that once the league has "matured" (whenever THAT may be!) they will open up the league for competition. But not yet.