MLS jersey Deals - who is missing?

i thought this was about a sale

 

Ditto.

 

Ha, me too.

Ah, remember this stuff?

Oh CT you so crazy. I stand by my statement that no company is going to put down $2 million (or more) to appear on Revs jerseys when said shirts are difficult to locate outside the Pro Shop and with the Revs' media profile being so small. They act small time, think small time, and are thusly viewed as small time.

 

Why doesn't Philadelphia have a sponsor?

 

Would you want your business to be associated with the Onion?

 

I wonder if Kraft has tried putting the Brazilian national team on our jersey. They seem to draw big here.

 

They're still in discussions for one, after PPL decided not to go whole-hog and sponsor both their soccer-specific stadium as well as their jerseys. The bigger question is why we, after quite a head-start on Philly, don't have a shirt sponsor? Don't fret, at this rate they'll have one before us. Then you can change your question to FCD or Colorado, but the answer will be the same as for us. Why spend money on franchises with microscopic local profiles?

 

The Sam Adams sponsorship is still my #1 wish, before world peace and puppies for everyone. I don't even care if they make any money off it. At least we could have the best jersey sponsorship in the entire MLS. I guarantee you it would create more buzz for the team if people saw fans walking around with Sam Adams jerseys. More than the Revs Girls that's for sure.

 

So, how many years has it been that teams have had jersey sponsors? 3? 4? Since the first teams had sponsors (LA, RBNY, etc.) the corporate line from Kraft Corp. has been waiting for the "right" deal. OK, I get this, maybe you don't want Xango or Extra on your shirts, and you're holding out for Visa, Google, Bank of America, etc.

But for every year you're waiting for the "right" deal to come along, you're pissing potential revenue right down the drain. Maybe instead of some high profile national or international company, who doesn't want to be associated with such a low-balling enterprise like the Revs, the Revs could go after some local firm that would like to have a higher profile nationally or internationally. LIke Sam Adams, or even Dunkin Donuts, or somebody who actually pays for signboards NOW.

With some medium-level shirt sponsor -- starting when the rest of the league did -- the Revs could have brought in somewhere between $500,000 - $1,000,000 a year and actually had some money -- and a serious marketing partner who would have cross-promotional campaigns with the Revs -- to afford stuff like, oh a DP or two.

As Mick Jagger once said, "Time waits for no one (and it won't wait for me)".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7Vy-W-TWU"]YouTube- THE ROLLING STONES TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE[/ame]

 

Do people really think the Kraft's are not interested in tapping this revenue stream? If they haven't signed a shirt sponsor yet they likely have a good reason. You can throw all the smack you want at the Kraft's for a lot of things but the one least realistic is that they are not interested in making money. That we don't know their reasoning is an invitation for the usual conjecture and Kraft bashing but in this one any reasonable person should likely just shrug and say--"I don't what the wait is all about but there is likely a good reason"

 

Eh no biggie here. Boston's only Boston-based soccer team has Foxwoods. And the sponsor logo simply references the resort, not the casino. So there is a way around any rules regarding gambling sponsors.

 

How about this:

The Krafts do think it's important to promote the new england revs.

The best place to promote ANYTHING is on the front of the soccer jersey.

So right now, the sponsor for the jersey is "New England Revolution"

Why would the krafts want to dilute an already tiny brand by sidelining it in favor of "Foxwoods"?

Is 1 million a year enough to offset the lack of exposure for the brand "New England Revolution"?

How many other private companies chose to hide their brand in favor of a foreign brand?

Last I checked, my mach 3 razor does not say "Toyota" on the handle. My dell computer does not say "Mcdonalds" on the back of the screen. My new banace shoes do not say "Ford".

Look at the post right above me. I have no idea what team that is. I see Foxwoods. Im not going to squint to see the crest. I have moved on and have not been exposed to the team brand, just foxwoods. If I linger long enough, then I see Puma as well.

Should the team be 3rd in line? Do they have enough fans that they don't need to advertise?

In marketing, exposure is huge.

Why waste it?

 

While it'd be nice to have a sponsor, since presumably whatever sponsor we might get would help push the team, I sincerely doubt that it'd really help the on-field product, which is what I most care about. Even if the team got another, let's say for yucks, million dollars per year from Sam Adams, Dunkin' Donuts, or whoever, does anyone really believe it'd go towards improving the line-up? Frankly, I don't, despite my wish that it would.

Plus, I think there's something to Jass's argument. Corporate logos really do take away from the team's identity: does anyone really like the Best Buy Chicago jerseys? I think they look like crap, compared to the Fire's unsponsored look. And some sponsors aren't worth it: I wouldn't wear a jersey with Herbalife, Xango, or some of the other logos on them. They really do undermine the team's branding. I'd rather the Revs didn't go the NASCAR route just for the sake of doing so.

But I'd totally buy a Sam Adams Revs jersey. Just sayin'.

 

No, which is why (IIRC) the league mandates the deal be for at least $2 million. Which (again, IIRC) has to be used on the team, not disappear into the coffers of Kraft Sports. And God knows anybody that's going to spend that kind of money (or more) is sure as hell going to promote this team, which KSG has shown they are not exactly adept at doing. I'm totally fine with having a corporate name on the front of the jersey if it means SOMEONE is finally going to promote and this market this team in a professional manner.

 

Some of the damage from ditching the "Revolution" word mark on the chest would be offset if we had a crest that included either "New England" or the team name instead of the soccer ball + stripes (beating a dead horse, I know).

 

Unfortunately there is also a trend now in pro soccer where it may look unprofessional to not have a jersey sponsor. I'd rather have nobody have a sponsor than everyone, but if we're the last team without a sponsor and we're not winning championships it might look amateur.

I'd also be concerned at the line of reasoning that they are promoting the team on their jerseys - what if they become successful and popular and Kraft decides he doesn't need to build name recognition? Is the team's reward for an MLS championship having Dunkin' Donuts on the jersey next year?

 

Is anyone here in the advertising business? I'd be curious to know how companies measure the potential value of a sponsorship, such as a stadium, being on the side of a race car, or a soccer jersey.

Is being on the front of the Revs jersey actually worth $500,000?

 

People. A little primer regarding advertising on soccer jersies. Unlike most North American sports where there are relentless breaks in the play of the game for commercials -- some engineered solely to show commercials -- soccer is 2 x 45 of continous play. Ergo, the 30- 60- model for commercial breaks simply doesn't work for soccer.

Prior to the 1994 World Cup, this was a huge issue for American TV. How could they possibly make money if they couldn't break for commercials every 10 minutes, or less? Until 1993, what few soccer games that were shown on English language TV were broken with commercial breaks until a fateful friendly with El Salvador in LA. ES didn't send a strong team so the USA had their way with them, 7:0. Unfortunately 4 of the 7 goals took place during commercial breaks and USSF President Alan Rothenburg hit the roof and from that moment on, there were no more commercial breaks during action, and we had the dawn of the advertisers' logos next to the score and time in the uppoer corner. There was also a much greater use of advertising signboards, as the US finally got with the model that the rest of the world uses for advertising during soccer games.

But it took MLS a lot longer to entertain the idea of major sponsorship on the front of the jersies as has been the norm for the last 30 years or more with pro clubs around the world. In the first year of MLS, there were sponsors' logos on MLS jersies, but they were small and were placed below the players' numbers on the back of the shirt. As you fellow fossils know, BIC was the Revs shirt sponsor in the first year. After the first year or two, MLS dropped this idea and it didn't return until Beckham joined the Galaxy and Herbalife became the first sponsor on the front of the jersey.

Why did this take so long for MLS to "get it"? Remember this is the league that mandated the coundown clock and the CrapShootout because they thought that this would appeal to US fans. Because they refused to realize that MLS wasn't just another US sport, it was an international sport that was played in the US.

So what to do about commercial revenue? Very simply, if you can't use the US standard 30- 60- commercials, then "American ingenuity" should be able to find another way to get the sponsors' brands in front of the eyeballs of US soccer fans. As soccer clubs around the world have discovered, having a major shirt sponsor (or in the case of Mexican teams whose uniforms look like they could be used by NASCAR drivers) or several shirt sponsors, this represents a major source of the team's revenue.

So, you guys are basically telling me that due to the "purity" of the sport (or some other inscrutable reason), that you would give up $2 million to NOT have a sponsor's logo on the front of your shirt? Apparently 13 of the 18 MLS clubs (including Portland and Vancouver) have already thought such an idea was crazy and have taken the plunge to have a major shirt sponsor and its associated revenue.

But once again, the Krafts are last to the dance on this issue too. There are two possible explanations for this failure:

1) The Revs are such a weak brand under the Kraft leadership, that they have tried and failed to find any firm that wants to pay $2 million to have their name on the front of the Revs' shirt; or

2) The Revs have not made a serious effort to find such a sponsor and are potentially pissing away $2 million in revenue per year.

Neither one of these explanations sounds like the actions of a "savvy businessman".

 

What an amazing statement

 

Not only have they missed out on X years worth of past revenue by not taking advantage of this opportunity, they've also put themselves in a position where they are likely going to get less money than they would have a year or two ago as (a) the economy tanked and (b) the team is considerably weaker than it once was. How many more years of measuring before they decide to cut?

 

For a comparative context of what other clubs are doing, go here:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1534868

 

Do you disagree? Personally I like it better the way other pro sports in the US handle it, little or no sponsorship on the jerseys. But the trend is definitely being set in pro-soccer leagues worldwide so I don't think it's crazy to say that having a jersey sponsorship is the standard as opposed to the exception to the rule.

Barcelona chose to donate their jersey sponsorship instead of just not having one, so that says something for how much some professional teams value the sponsorship real estate on their jerseys.

The more I consider it though the more I'm inclined to agree with Jass' comment that keeping the Revs name on the jersey is more valuable for the team at this time than the money from a corporate sponsor.

 

Take a look at this post and see if you have the same position that you do now:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21761800&postcount=34