FIFA banning ads on shorts

Discussion in 'Business and Media' started by MetroDug, Aug 7, 2002.

  1. MetroDug

    MetroDug Member

    May 4, 1999
    New York, NY USA
    From the 8/6 New York Times:

    FIFA has told the Mexican federation that it must ban
    advertising on players' socks and shorts. The Mexicans said they stand to
    lose $40 million if the sponsors' names have to be erased. ...

    I wonder why fifa is not cracking down on MLS then too, since the league has always put sponsor logos on shorts
     
  2. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    because you answered it yourself... sponsor names... not logos
     
  3. Footer Phooter

    Jul 23, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
    Can someone give me one good reason why they're doing this?
     
  4. jd2084

    jd2084 New Member

    Aug 1, 2001
    Rhode Island
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't really agree with FIFA doing this, but if they are trying to make the a decision in the name of good taste then it's the right one. MFL uniforms are starting to look more like NASCAR than soccer.
     
  5. Topo

    Topo Member

    Feb 15, 2001
    I hope this means that the A-League team that has the Target symbols on their asses to advertise the store (Richmond, I think) can still have them.

    Those are funny.
     
  6. MetroDug

    MetroDug Member

    May 4, 1999
    New York, NY USA
    hey, i must be too stupid to understand the difference betweem Chivas having CORONA or SOL plastererd on thier shorts and the Galaxy having BUD or'quakes havig YAHOO SPORTS.

    would you be kind enough to enlighten me?
     
  7. Native Aztexan

    Jan 27, 2002
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think it's bad that FIFA is telling MFL how to do their business and where to put their sponsors ads at (e.g. Leon). MFL and any other leagues needs all the sponsors they can get.
    Maybe it's (Target symbols) there to show their opposition where to strike the ball at. ;)
     
  8. Deleted USer

    Deleted USer Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    I beg to differ. We are not hurting with sponsors.

    I personally dont like it, but what bothers me more is the fact that FIFA is trying to tell us how to run our own domestic league.

    Clubs are expected to lose anywhere from 30-40 million. The problem is, if FIFA pursues this, they may find themselves in a lawsuit. Grupo Modelo, Omnilife, Cemex, etc have contracts and they have already forked out the money. FIFA should take into consideration the contracts and wait until they expire.
     
  9. SoFla Metro

    SoFla Metro Member

    Jul 21, 2000
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    So the players don't look like stock cars.
     
  10. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree that MFL teams (and have you ever seen Mexican baseball uniforms and their umpires?) do look like stock cars, but if it's the difference between having a league and not having a league (potentially), I think some folks need to learn to get used to a little commercialism unless they want strikers to make 10 pesos an hour.

    Could hurt A-League teams. Many of them have short logos, don't they?
     
  11. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    > hey, i must be too stupid to understand the
    > difference betweem Chivas having CORONA or
    > SOL plastererd on thier shorts and the Galaxy
    > having BUD or'quakes havig YAHOO SPORTS.
    >
    > would you be kind enough to enlighten me?

    MLS teams have one sponsor for the whole outfit. MFL teams have multiple sponsors for the outfit.
     

Share This Page