it's look minor league how? the majority of the soccer jersey wore in this country has the sponsor logo in front (from Mexican leagues, Europe,A-league, etc....) only MLS does not. It looks more like MLS is minor league compares to the Premiership. IT's not amature, if it is, you can say that MAN U, Liverpool, Arsenal is amature. It's a soccer tradition. Soccer fans expect it. However, unlike single table, relegation/promotion which will cost MLS money, logo sponsorship will get MLS money. Do not compare soccer to hockey,football,baseball,basketball, they all have tons of commercials on TV, MLS does not. Would you like to watch basketball/football with no commercials but with sponsor logo in front or basketball/football with ton of commercials? anyway, having the logo in front do not make a league minor. (to a few it does, but to most, it doesn't. they understand the need of MLS to have some commercials success)
Traditions that still arise out of necessity are not traditions at all. I don't know anyone on these boards who are fans of non-US clubs clamoring about the next sponsor that will adorn the kit that their players wear. I don't know why people insist that this is about anything more than making money.
I did write incorporate into the shirt design. A big blue Frosted Flakes patch doesn't exactly do that for a red and black shirt, regardless of whether it is in the front or back. However, using the normal Burn colors and having a scripted Kellogg's or blocked Radio Shack across the front in white wouldn't be too bad.
I think my brain hurts but, why is it better to have it on the front, instead of the back again?? I thought the back patch took care of all of this crap......
it's not a tradition. It's seen more as a necessary evil and most would be happy if their clubs didn't have one (except that not having one makes it looks like your club has an incompetant marketing department). Having a bad one is awful and really ruins a shirt. The best thing anyone has ever said about any shirt advert is that after a while you don't notice it. I'm not sure what companies think they get out of it. I've still got no idea what my club's sponsor, westcoast, do. Throughout the 80s Everton paraded before the nation in shirts with "Hafnia" on them. You had more chance of finding the holy grail than finding one person who could tell you what product Hafnia produced.
Sponors on Euro-shirts are not tradition. Go back and look at the Toffs catalog and check out pictures of shirts up through the mid-80s. This was done out of the serious need for more money and I would guess most fans would rather go back to the days when spending cash on a replica shirt didn't mean you were paying to be a human billboard. I can see how people resent that. From a pure branding perspective I actually think sponsorship is bad thing for the club. Sure, a club like ManU get ridiculous fees from Nike and Vodaphone. At the same time, those companies get far more out of the deal. IMO, clubs are trading their identity for money. ManU is a viable worldwide brandname, but what has prominace on the shirt? Vodaphone has prominance. I'm sure the ManU PLC has people running it that are much smarter than me, but there's no way a company like Coke or Microsoft would give another business entity top-billing on their packages. Sports is a much different business model. It would be interesting to see what would happen to a big club if they marketed replica kits under their own brand.
I don't think any team in this world want to copy Barca, they are in over $100 million in debt. Maybe there is a connection there. Man U get $55-$65 millions for their logo contract with Vodafone for 4 years. Barca got none.
Re: Re: Re: Hate it they could use the $15 million or so from sponsorship instead of nothing. Which would you rather have? 15 millions dollars a year? or nothing?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate it The point isn't $15 million or nothing. The point is that Barca painted themselves into a corner and were forced into this. MLS is competing with other American leagues for attention and credibility. From that perspevtive, I believe MLS can't look amateurish compared to those leagues. Here in the US, sponsors on sports shirts are a way for youth and amateur teams to defray costs. When an MLS team puts Frosted Flakes on the prime part of the shirt, it will look amateurish to an American audience. People won't see the Burn v. Crew. They will see Frosted Flakes v. Pepsi. It's impoartant that the teams and the league develop it's own brand identity before selling it off for a short-term gain. Aside from that, few league sponsors put their names on the back of shirts as it is. The amount of money we're talking about is trivial compared to the $15 million one of the best brands in the sport can command. I can't imagine the sticking point for sponsors is the front v. back of the shirt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate it You seem to be contridicting yourself, at first you state that: As though the Sponsor is the only they can tell about the game. But currenty, with the sponsor on the back and little revenue to MLS, you (and I) both seem to think that the sponsor patches are relatively unnoticeable and currently arent invoking this "amatur" feel.(enless i have read you wrong) But later you state: Going from not very noticable to all you can tell about a game seems to be a pretty big improvement in the eyes of advertisers.
MLS is weak Any posts that even try to put MLS in the same business model as baseball or football is in fantasy land - the size and demand these leagues can project is in a different universe. As a Yank living in Australia, I have been lucky enough to watch MLS sized soccer leagues(and other sports like AFL and League Rugby) here and in Asia where the revenue to shocking and the leagues struggle. They all do what they need to survive - including any garrish sponsorship deals. Assuming that the MLS is NOT tied to a marketing strategy that DOES NOT allow individual teams to have individual full front sponorship - this has to change. The sooner we all agree that MLS is piss weak as a footprint and a business and YES - A MINOR LEAGUE comparitively- the sooner we stop worrying about how it all 'looks' or is perceived. Aside from some of the more pathetic comments about being American so not conforming to the world (wake up and look around- that has not gotten us anywhere) the majority of posts reflect the true issue - ensuring the MLS CAN survive, generate increased revenue and hopefully profit. That profit will come from sponsorship based on media and advertising visibility - and maybe a bit of ticketsales and merch sales...nothing else matters in the short term.
Hell..I say 'sell it all'!! Sell the jerseys, shorts, field and even team names for crying out loud...The Los Angeles Home Depots vs San Jose Intels.....or whatever..I really don't care. It doesn't affect what happens on the field, does it? It's all just a form of entertainment anyway..........if you think it's more than that-GET A LIFE!
Given a choice between a sponsor's logo on the front and one on the back, I'll take the front. Logos on the back look stupid- almost (almost)stupid enough not to be worth the money. But if we're not gonna have a sponsor's logo, then by all means, get rid of the club logo and go with the crest alone. That looks nice, and in time, people will begin to recognize the crest and colors. I own only two jerseys with a logo (Real Madrid- 1 field and 1 GK), and I had to google "Teka" before I knew what they did for a living. Didn't bother me one bit. I think it's kinda cool to be able to tell the era of a jersey by the sponsor logo, but that's just me. No Eurosnobbery here, it's simply the result of years of associating the club-level Game with sponsor logos. I don't think it's a necessity or anything, but neither do I see any reason for MLS to go off on its own for the sake of doing so, or for the sake of "being American", whatever that means. Not sure why so many here feel the need to do this. The league is based here, and so it is American. Nothing can change that. Besides, anyone who'd turn their nose up at soccer because the kits don't resemble the uniforms of other sports played in the US is probably never gonna become a fan anyhow. Of course, I'd buy any jersey --bowling/baseball/hockey/basketball-style logos and all-- that was worn by an MLS team based in Atlanta (dons flameproof suit). But if the ATL ever gets an MLS team, I hope they do the DCU thing, by going the "crest only" route and wearing Adidas.
Re: MLS is weak But of course there is a huge difference!! You are talking about sports activity that enjoy the full support of the USA SPORTS MEDIA and SOCCER !!!
No, no, no, no, no! The fact that European clubs have sponsor logos doesn't mean we should follow suit. Sponsor logos are, IMHO, the worst aspect of the international club game, and if Barcelona only voted to finally permit shirt sponsorship after going tens of millions of Euros in debt then then it's blatantly obvious that they considered it a necessary evil... which is the general consensus in Europe anyway. The US might be the only part of the world where any soccer fan thinks sponsors make a jersey look "more professional". And even then, I guarantee that some media personality is going to come out calling MLS bush-league for putting big sponsor logos on the front of its shirts. BTW, there are other European clubs that have never had sponsors. Rotor Volgograd, one of the bigger clubs in Russia, for instance - since the day they were founded they've had ROTOR across the front of their shirt and nothing else.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally perplexed I would. I could care less about who the sponsors are as long as the colors stay the same. Good argument though. Many a team has worn ugly kit in the past (and they will in the future [see Juves PINK jersey]). And you know what? The sun came up the next morning, as usual. Spare us the straw man "commercials during games argument". We are not at that point of desperation yet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hate it If you think MLS is ONLY competing with other american sports you are one of those crack smoking ninnies who occupy the MLs home office. We are competing with Fulham and Blackburn and Hanover and ManU. Yes thats right MLS competes with ManU. Why? Because they can afford to buy our best talent and take them away from their home league where fans will rarely get to see them in the flesh. People need to grow the hell up. Until we can provide an incentive for even some of our best talent to stay here this league will struggle to grow. And THAT boys and girls is what will make us minor league. We have much bigger problems than whether or not the logos are on the front or back. We should be worrying about why the league doesn't encourage teams to seek out there own marketing and commercial agreements instead of keeping such a tight fist on everything. This is why this league is such a hard sell. People are not encouraged to be creative and bring in more revenue locally. Its all orchestrated from MLS central.
And do these people like soccer anyway? Are these the type of people who would give our sport a fair shake? And having the logo on the back has stopped Jim Rome from calling our game bush league right? Thats what I thought We need to develop this league and build a fan base. Not worry about what a**holes who won't like us anyway think.
sponsorship value or club membership so nothing seems to have been resolved on the sponsorship front by the looks of it. just thought I would add another path to discuss (probably needs a diff thread though). Most clubs in the world are based on memberships when you look around - and apart from the US not many markets can create the massive revenue that the NFL or MLB have hold of. Along with sponsorship deals, here the Aussie Rules League can get memberships of up to around 25-50K and then can establish teams of about $5million in operations. Average player is on about 100K and average attendance is about 25K. If we have all settled the sponsorship on the jersey as going nowhere (as a debate) then I suggest a discussion on creating a clear membership programs to create longterm loyalty and revenue....or is that too non-american. back to work
Man...maybe it's true that more people in this country watch the Super Bowl for the commercials than for the game.... Anyway, front of shirt sponsors are the worst part of international club soccer. If you can't show commercials, just turn the whole game into a commercial. Yuck. And some people try to say this is a "tradition?" Never have I heard anyone speak admiringly of their "tradition" of having DORITOS splashed across their club's jersey. It maybe a necessary evil some places, but it looks stupid nonetheless. Now if it's what you've grown up with you'll probably be used to it, but if not, apart from those here who seem to have some infatuation with advertisements, it's going to look dumb. It does look dumb to a lot of people when they first see it. Everyone I've ever tried to introduce to the game has made some such comment. And just as most Americans would not know if they were watching Man Utd vs. Chelsea, when common sense would dictate that they were watching the Vodafones vs Fly Emirates, no one apart from season ticket holders is going to think they're watching the Fire vs the Rapids when what they see is McDonalds vs Microsoft. Bottom line, it would look as dumb here as it does everywhere else. And please spare me either the "we should do as the do it in Europe" argument or the knee-jerk, reverse "we won't do it like they do it in Europe" argument. I take such differences on a case by case basis. And in this case...shirt sponsors look awful there and they'd look awful here. And without better ratings or attendance, they woldn't even bring much cash.
Brilliant! That's the end of discussion! Mods, close the thread, there's nothing left to say. I am speechless. Stunned, even.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN LOOKING AT THIS THREAD!!!! Ah, you'll have to excuse me for the reaction but my answer is NO to sponsor logos on the front of jerseys. Europe has their way of doing things and here in America we have our way of doing things. Just like most European leagues do not have playoffs, drafts, or team franchises in their system - why should we have sponsor logos? It only works great for Europe because they have relied on that source of revenue for years especially when the ordinary fan was not buying replica jerseys many years ago. BUT here in the Unites States, owners of professional sports team buy the rights to a team including offical team logos which gives them much greater revenue because American fans will prefer to buy a jersey without a frontside sponsor logo. I love the current style of MLS jerseys, they look sharp and super cool with the name of the team across the chest and no sponsor logos. Europeans WISH they could do that. I mean, what would you want next? Frontside sponsor logos on World Cup national jerseys?? That would be ridiculous.