What do you think of MLS putting sponsor logo on the front?

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by pc4th, Jan 13, 2004.

  1. whip

    whip Member

    Aug 5, 2000
    HOUSTON TEXAS
    Totally perplexed

    You are incredible!!! Are you aware that the league need to increase the flow of revenue?? Are you aware that that money can be use finance professional soccer development in USA?? As soon as MLS wake up to the real world of business it will be a revolution on team jersey design, new jersey, new colors, and the most important aspect: a super COOL SOCCER JERSEYS DUDE!!
     
  2. JMMUSA8

    JMMUSA8 New Member

    Nov 3, 2001
    Webster
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    first off, this isnt a European style, its a world style. The only way MLS could pull this off is by having distinguished and well-designed (key word) logos. Then, the teams have to be with their sponsors and colors for a period of time. Then they can start putting sponsors on the front. For instance, you see a Opel on a jersey and the colors are red and white, your pretty much sure its going to be Bayern Munich. If you see Vodafone with an elobrate gold shield on a red jersey, you pretty much certain its Man U. I'm all for the logos on the front, but lets wait a while for it.
     
  3. metrocorazon

    metrocorazon Member

    May 14, 2000
    It really isnt redundant to have Team logos on the front because no one can see the badge. Look at every team jersey around the world, look at them objectively and not like you know who they are by color/scheme/logo. look at them as someone who is looking at that jersey for the first time, now tell me if that simple dot on the top right of the jersey tells you who that team is. It seems redundant to us because we know who the team is.

    You know if Im tuning into a game I can see what the team name is right on the front with a logotype nt the front. and this is specially good when no one knows who the hell you are. That is what MLS is facing right now. No one knows who these teams are, not even soccerfans around the world. I cant tell you how many times Ive worn a jersey or a friend of mine has and we've been stopped by others who say, "Cool Carlserg shirt" or cool "Dreamcast jersey, do they come in Nintendo?". And these people werent being wise asses, they truly thought we were wearing that brands shirt. It was only after we laugh at them and explain to people what it is that people get it. And even then they have no idea.

    Having sponsors on the jerseys just automatically puts the notion out that this league/team cant survive without pimping their jerseys. Usually teams that do this do it cause they have no money. And MLS has no money but atleast we dont have to tell people we dont and deter them from becoming fans because now they know we arent going to be around and are scrapping every last penny to survive.

    Stadiums are a whole other ballgame. Jerseys are supposed to be scacred and not touched. People can understand selling the name for a stadium that cost $500M to build. And there people out there that STILL dont like it. I mean people will go bonkers if Yankee stadium was to all the sudden be renamed "Brand X Stadium".

    It makes sense moneywise and for people who are paying us so that their logo can be eveywhere, but it something you need to think about on what path you wanna take. Money or Crappyness.

    And theres other ways to make money. And sponsors arent going to get people to come out to stadiums and follow the league.
     
  4. metrocorazon

    metrocorazon Member

    May 14, 2000
    Re: Totally perplexed

    Oh yeah NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB. They know nothing about the sports business. Thats why they are STILL able to make money without pimping their jerseys out...right?
     
  5. PeddieJV

    PeddieJV New Member

    May 4, 2003
    EHT NJ, PGH PA
    TV

    Another big reason why soccer in general, especially MLS, need sponsor fronted shirts is the lack of commercial time. Every big time US sport has multiple stoppages of play during the course of the game in which tv cuts out and goes to a commercial break. Soccer, with its continuous play for two 45 minute periods, has no stoppages of play and no commercial time, expect for some at the half.

    Because of this, MLS had to pay ESPN for airtime in order to show games.

    Now, aside from ad-boards and the occasional "this part of the match is brought to you by this company," which dont do much for the league in terms of revenue, soccer teams needed to find another way to gain revenue from advertising, ei. sponsors on shirts, or they would end up losing a great deal of money trying to show the game on tv.
     
  6. metrocorazon

    metrocorazon Member

    May 14, 2000
    Re: TV

    Yet how is it that 2 of the teams that own their own stadiums make money? What thois means is that we really dont need to pimp ourself out like that. We can become a profitable league if we build more stadiums and 1/2 the league will prob do so in the next 3 years. By that time the league wont be losing money but making money, all this without making yourself look cheap. Those extra $2M a year may not seem so good when people arent coming out to a game cause you look like the next coming of the bad news bears.
     
  7. Charlie Armstrong

    Mar 7, 2001
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is a godawful idea, and one only people who are currently fans of foreign soccer clubs like. While that may well include a majority of current MLS fans, one hopes that this will not always be the case.

    My personal favorite team/logo combination was Fullham a couple years back when their sponsor was Pizza Hut. To be honest, it was my favorite only because I hated the team. The white jerseys with black and red accents worked perfectly with the logo. The whole team looked like I should be tipping them a dollar for delivering my dinner within 30 minutes. Several of my friends, having seen the Arsenal jersey have asked me how "the Zeros" are doing. Apparently they missed (or ignored) the subscripted number 2.

    To the American eye, advertising on sports uniforms is utterly bush league. It's a sign that the team is semi-pro at best. Why should we change? To look like the "rest of the world?" Fine, I want MLS to look like Real Madrid. On a more wide-ranging note, I do not understand this endless carping on BS that MLS look like the fabled "rest of the world." The variations of team naming, uniforms, season, league structure and so on are nearly endless. It behooves MLS to find their place within the American sporting structure before trying to do the impossible task of looking like... well, you know, the rest of the world.
     
  8. PeddieJV

    PeddieJV New Member

    May 4, 2003
    EHT NJ, PGH PA
    Re: Re: TV

    First off, while i do think that team operated Stadiums will vastly help the league in terms of profitability, only LA made a profit this year, Columbus still hasn't, and as baseball stadiums have shown us that as the new stadiums get older, people's interest will also go down.

    But may i rephrase my previous post,(this may be a little over the top):

    What would rather have: soccer on tv where the two teams may have "sold out" and placed sponsor logos on their shirts and multilayered ad-boards encircle the field, etc. or no soccer on tv at all?

    Whether or not the current fans and new fans will accept sponsorship logos on the shirts remains to be seen.
     
  9. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you are all wrong
     
  10. Beakmon FC

    Beakmon FC Member+

    LA Galaxy
    United States
    Jan 10, 2002
    The OC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Like the walls of every major league baseball stadium, NHL dasherboards and NBA scorer's tables, and NFL field.....
     
  11. El_Maestro

    El_Maestro Member

    Jun 5, 2002
    Planet Earth
    Club:
    Barcelona Guayaquil
    For the people that say that they don't want brand names in the front of their jerseys because they don't want to copy "the rest of the world", FC Barcelona has never used ads on their jerseys.

    So, you'd be copying Barsa.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Bonji

    Bonji Moderator

    Feb 4, 2003
    Denver, Colorado
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For me this is one issue, will the sponsors pay more to be on the front of the jersey? If the answer is yes I support the idea of logos on the front of MLS jerseys. However, I would like them to be like the premiership where logos are not full color. Someone posted a Liverpool jersey and the Carlsberg logo is tastfully white. It looks like it belongs on there. Some South and Central American leagues have full color blocks on the front of the jerseys and it looks like crap.

    Bottom line, if sponsors will pay more to be on the front of a jersey, put their logo on the front in white script.
     
  13. whip

    whip Member

    Aug 5, 2000
    HOUSTON TEXAS
    Re: Re: Totally perplexed

    Are you aware that all this sports institutions enjoy the full support of the USA sport media ?? You still have not come up with a solid reason why we should not pimp the jerseys as long as MLS does not fall into the exageration and UNCOOLNES of the Mexican league...Beside is totally unfair to MLS teams that everytime they play any team from Mexico they are making money from BIMBO while MLS does not make nothing
     
  14. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But not the uniforms themselves.

    Thinking that putting the sponsors on the front of the jerseys (as opposed to the back) will bring some sort of great financial windfall to the league is highly flawed. To be a jersey sponsor in Major League Soccer, you have to be a league sponsor. Being a league sponsor gets you all sorts of exposure. You get

    * signboards at games
    * ads on all TV telecasts
    * ads in every single game program in every single city
    * having awards and stuff named for you (like the Pepsi Most Valuable Player and the Budweiser Scoring Champion)
    * a patch on the back of some teams jersey
    * and much, much more

    For all these goodies, companies like Pepsi, Radio Shack, and Budweiser pay a million or two per year. In the world of American professional sports and even in the world of soccer, that's not a bad deal. And yet, sponsors haven't been falling all over themselves for it.

    Now, you're going to tell me that by simply moving the logo from the back to the front, a sponsor is going to pony up a huge sum of money? Please. That's like saying that upgrading from the factory AM/FM radio to the AM/FM/CD player should raise the price of a new car by $10,000.

    Yeah, having the sponsor logo on the front of the jersey (as opposed to the back) would mean a few more sheckels for the league, but only a few, if any. Honestly, the jersey sponsorship is pretty small potatoes stuff in the whole league sponsorship package. To use the new car analogy, it's the "fabric protectant" that the dealer always throws in. League sponsors are far more interested in the TV ads during all the league broadcasts, for instance. And simply moving that logo around wouldn't raise enough money to cover Clint Mathis' beer expenses.

    And if you're going to argue with me that it should still be done because the league needs all the money it can get, you should be prepared to answer the next question from me, which is "So how long have you also been in favor of commercial breaks in soccer matches?" I mean, hey, the league needs all the money it can get.

    To me, some things are worth more than money. Not being reminded of the movie "The Bad News Bears" (where the team had "Chico's Bail Bonds on the front of their shirts) is one of those things. Not looking like Portsmouth -- you know, the team that has the logo of the manufacturer of Beanie Babies on their shirts -- is one of those things. From 2000 to 2002, my team had the Kellogg's Frosted Flakes logo on the back of their shirt. That was bad enough. God forbid that it should've ever been on the front.

    Barca gets it. Why don't some of you?
     
  15. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: Re: Totally perplexed

    Yeah, and it's just absolutely killing me that no MLS team is running around with "BIMBO" on the fronts of their shirts. Which would actually be a possibility, since Bimbo's baked goods are actually in most grocery stores in the Southwest.

    Which is the problem. Whenever people think "Hey, sponsor logos on the fronts of the shirts" would be cool, they're only thinking of cool or even mostly tolerable sponsors. Budweiser or Radio Shack, for instance. Nobody ever thinks of the worst case scenarios, many of which I can find for you with a simple scan of the shirt sponsors around world soccer.

    And don't start with the "MLS teams would never have something an embarassing sponsor's logo on their shirt." HELLO! Did you not see the 1996 uniforms? That should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that MLS' embarassment threshold is ridiculously high. Do you honestly think that if Bimbo came a-calling and wanted to put their logo on the front of an MLS jersey (after all, they are trying to broaden their sales in the US, especially to those soccer-loving Mexican immigrants), MLS would say no? Of course not.

    Now, which one of you will volunteer YOUR team to have "BIMBO" plastered on the fronts of their jerseys?
     
  16. Perugina

    Perugina Member

    Aug 7, 2003
    Grand Rapids MI
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hate it

    Kudos to FC Barcelona for just saying NO! It may be the only club in Europe that doesn't have a sponsor on the shirt.

    MLS should stick with team logos on the front.
     
  17. Roehl Sybing

    Roehl Sybing Guest

    I would've voted yes, but some people around here have tried to cart off the concept of sponsors on jerseys as a "tradition" or "just another cool thing to do."

    Regarding this, anything more than an argument about making money is phony and will only lead to turning me off.

    Do we need the money? Absolutely. Are our jerseys going to look better/more professional because they have sponsors? Absolutely not, and anyone who suggests as such ought to be taken out back and shot. The team logo emblazoned across the front is the best identifying mark for each of the league's teams. Clearly, people who disagree just want to play "like the rest of the world" and that never flies with me.

    BUT do we need the money? If we must, let's do it, and get the most money we can get.
     
  18. Texan

    Texan New Member

    Jan 8, 2001
    As far as profesionalism goes, I think if you are going to have shirt advertising it's better on the front and incorporated into the jersey rather than what we have now which is a patch like ad below the numbers. The Kellogg patch the Burn had in previous years was pretty awful, but maybe if it was on the front and the shirt was designed with it in mind it wouldn't look so tacky.
     
  19. Sachin

    Sachin New Member

    Jan 14, 2000
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally perplexed

    Or worse, wasn't it Fulham that had "Virgin" as their sponsor?

    Sachin
     
  20. rudeboy

    rudeboy Member

    Jul 5, 2001
    Kansas City
    Re: Hate it

    And let us not forget that they are up to their arses in debt as well. Maybe time to consider a sponsor. Their kits are lacking as much flair as their team on the field is.
     
  21. Mike Marshall

    Mike Marshall Member+

    Feb 16, 2000
    Woburn, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But what are we marketing?

    This is the United States. You walk down the street in a Man Utd shirt, and people look at you funny and think, "What the Hell is Vodafone?"

    I'd rather keep the team names on the front and have people wondering "What the Hell is the Revolution?".
    I am. I'm also aware that there won't be a great deal of monetary difference between putting the ads on the front of the jerseys compared to putting them on the back. Know why? Because nobody watches MLS. Know why nobody watches MLS? Because they don't market themselves enough.

    So, here's a league that that doesn't market themselves enough, and you want to give away their best advertising space to make a few bucks right now?

    Say it with me, boys and girls -- Advertising revenue is not going to make or break this league.
     
  22. PeddieJV

    PeddieJV New Member

    May 4, 2003
    EHT NJ, PGH PA
  23. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: Hate it

    And jersey sponsorships are keeping all those clubs in Europe out of mind-boggling debt.

    No, wait. They aren't. They're also in mind-boggling debt because they make stupid financial decisions. Hmm. Maybe that's Barca's problem as well? Nah, can't be. They're deep in debt because they don't have a shirt sponsorship.

    :rolleyes:
     
  24. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Dude, there is no conceivable way that you could make a shirt with a huge Frosted Flakes logo on the front not look tacky.

    Yeah, I guess that MLS could say, "No, we don't want Frosted Flakes, we just want the Kellogg's logo." But of course, they didn't do that when it was on the back of the shirt, which was bad enough, so why do we think that they'd do it for the front?
     
  25. Northside Rovers

    Jan 28, 2000
    Austin TX
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    IF MLS got more money from moving the logo to the front - fine.

    But like El Jefe said - some of those logos don't look so hot on a jersey.

    Vodafone and Opel may look cool - but "Doritos" on Fulham looked pretty dumb.
     

Share This Page