What do you meant by that? Before, the MLS team jerseys had not sponsors. Period. Advertising in MLS has always been the same as in most in professional soccer league. If anything, compared to FMF, matches in MLS have been less commercialized. Just to clarify that "TV time outs" at least used in NFL, IIRC, is where there is a literal stoppage of game so that TV can take a break to show commercials from the sponsors.
Well, goes for me, too, because I don't see this close connection between shirt sponsors and TV timeouts that some of the others do. Thanks for making the distinction between TV timeouts and "real" timeouts; although I wouldn't make too much of that either. Over the years the NFL and NBA have added to the number of timeouts that a team can call, haven't they? And let's face it, they either made the change or stuck with it because more timeouts means more commercials. In that sense, they're almost all "TV timeouts".
I'm all in favor of anything that keeps my country's soccer league solvent. If that means having corporate sponsors on the front of the shirts, so be it. I can live with it. Someone brought up the question of whether sports fans would accept sponsor logos on NFL or MLB jerseys. Of course not. It would be seen as a greedy cash grab. You see, the difference with soccer is that the clubs are perceived as needing the money. (Yes, for wealthy clubs like ManU it may all be gravy, but there are thousands of little clubs who count on that sponsor money to balance the books.) The same goes with NASCAR, by the way, where fans understand that a racing team that can't put a sponsor on the hood will be out of business pretty quick. As long as sponsor money is seen as an important part of keeping the sport viable, fans will get on board. Now, there may come a time in the future when MLS is so successful that the shirt sponsor money is all extra profit, but we'll still be stuck with the logos. But having the logos now helps increase the chances that we'll get to that point. But to the topic at hand -- sure, let the ladies have sponsors. Because they sure as hell could use the money. ------RM
Understandable about the "thousands of little clubs" but it doesn't explain the difference between the big leagues of soccer versus the big leagues in American baseball, basketball, and football. Quite simply, the difference with soccer is that they took cash over class. (or they simply took it faster because I'm not counting on the pro leagues here to remain purists about it.) Oh, maybe I see what you're saying - in European football, there's a lot more attention given to the "minor" leagues than there is to, say, minor league baseball here in the US. After all, through relegation and promotion, some of those teams will advance to the "big leagues." So people are more accustomed to seeing the jersey sponsors on teams that they know do need the cash. Now speaking of class and cash... I was rather intrigued when I first noticed Barcelona's jersey with the UNICEF logo on it. I was even more impressed when I heard Barcelona's chairman. (I don't even know for sure what UNICEF stands for but I know it's basically the United Nations Children's Education Fund or something like that.) Instead of taking in millions of dollars for some corporate sponsor to put their logo on, Barcelona pays UNICEF a small percentage on every jersey they sell. That's class.
I don't mind the smaller logos. I can remember WUSA jerseys - a Clean & Clear patch on the arm, a Comcast patch at the shoulder. Acuvue, Venus, Hyundai... It was fine, and to this day I support brands who I remember supported the WUSA.
My, my, touchy today are we?!! Still, I'm having fun with it - seeing that I've been holding the fort all by myself for a while. (Or maybe that's what's stupid about this thread for you!) 590 views and counting here. When this is over, Go, Stranger, and tell the Lacedaemonians...(!)
That's an interesting distinction - smaller, discreet logos as opposed to the big logo which takes the place of the team name. Does that count as a shirt sponsor for the purposes we're talking about? Maybe I can't object to the kind of sponsor logo you're describing, although of course it also won't bring in as much money as the full sponsorship that I think we're thinking of, the kind which I fear may hurt each individual team's ability to establish its own identity (and therefore the league as a whole).
I'm guessing that was the thinking of the WUSA organizers, which is why they went with the smaller patches. I think it worked out well.
So why did MLS take 10 years before allowing shirt sponsors? They're a bunch of smart guys, right? Argument against shirt sponsors in the first few years: you'll sell out too cheap. You'll have these sponsors on board who will have thse sweet deals locked in at a bargain price, or who will expect to keep getting a good deal because they've been "supporting" the team all along. You can see the potential problem when MLS signed a certain Englishman. Suddenly, MLS became a much hotter property. Suddenly those jerseys were worth a lot more.
I didn't think I was hallucinating all those Master Card logos in the 90s. Argument for shirt sponsors in the first three years: You live to see Year 4.
Well said! I even thought the new league might put a minimum sponsorship amount on years 3 or 4 now, in other words letting sponsors know in advance that the plan was that the league would have more value in a few years and would require bigger investments in the future. As for those MasterCard logos, I figure if anyone's hallucinating around here it should be me since I've been drinking that absinthe stuff lately. So, seriously, not only do I stand to be corrected on the MLS sponsor history, I really don't have a stand at all here- as I said before I didn't follow MLS until very recently so I'm relying on others to clue us in. But, from what I see, MLS has demonstrated some concern over the issues I raised: a) not being locked into deals with companies that got in on the ground floor, b) not having the identities of teams get lost in the promotion. Which brought them to the situation a year or so ago when they started signing up multimillion jersey sponsors upon David Beckham's arrival.
The "tennis dress" system for the WUSA didn't give the best brand value to its sponsorships. You had to really look to see the logos. Of course, it was highly ironic when Charmaine Hooper and the Atlanta Beat walked around wearing Dent Wizard patches. Thing is, the "value" of the WUSA and its sponsorships were highly inflated. One year, the Washington Freedom actually had a "presenting sponsor," in that all press releases in the third year called the team "Washington Freedom presented by Discovery Kids." Thing is, given the fact that the team was owned by Discovery, there was no other outside sponsorship coming in. Same with having the AOL ad boards during TNT broadcasts; it was pretty much "house money" for the league sponsors. The WUSA FO never got a cash infusion from U.S. Soccer Foundation until it was much, much too late. I'm not saying that Kotex is likely going to pay $700K to put "Lightdays" on the Boston Breakers' uniform. However, if the team is going to put, say, Gillette on it, it's "house money" and not an outside revenue stream.
I don't know this for sure, but I suspect it was for the same reason as the countdown clock and the shootout. They must have figured that large corporate sponsor logos across the front of the shirt would turn off the "casual American fan" they coveted so dearly. This fan allegedly wanted colorful uniforms with the team nickname or city emblazoned across the front. Now that the "casual American fan" who spends big bucks on soccer has proven to be a myth, MLS is willing to take an obvious step to get their clubs to profitability faster. ------RM
I'm trying to give soccer the benefit of the doubt but it's not working. While we can understand the bit about "thousands of little clubs who count on that sponsor money", it really doesn't explain the big clubs. When you get to the big leagues, you should be beyond some of that. Soccer and its fans have simply opted to accept looking cheap even at its highest levels. Now it's also understandable to put the new women's league into the category of little clubs so this may not apply here to whether they should have shirt sponsors. But I'd like to think the ambition here is to create a "big league" for women and think accordingly, and to be sufficiently bold and capitalized not to depend on some meager shirt sponsorships for survival. Here's why it's not working for me... Automotive names always make it look like you're talking to the service manager at the garage.
You should, yes. But the world doesn't work like that. I can "explain the big clubs" -- for them, it's nothing more than a greedy cash grab. However, sponsors are needed to keep the smaller clubs solvent (including some clubs playing at high levels). And if you let the smaller clubs have sponsors, the big ones are going to want them too. It's just something you have to put up with for the sake of soccer as a whole. As for Inter, Pirelli has been their sponsor since forever. Pirelli is probably willing to accept the smaller logo on the "red cross" uniforms because the company and team are so closely linked. Everyone thinks "Pirelli" when they see Inter Milan whether or not there's a huge logo. ------RM
When baseball floated a proposal to have an advertising tie-in on the 1st base, 2nd base and 3rd base bags (I think for a Spiderman movie), there was an uproar and the idea was shelved. At least in some ways, fans of baseball, basketball, and (American) football resist the over-commercialization of their games. That soccer fans have not reflects poorly on the sport. That the money isn't crucial to the top teams and can, in fact, be better put to use, is shown by Barcelona's "reverse-sponsorship" of UNICEF. As for Inter Milan and Pirelli: Pirelli has the luxury of associating with a classic (and classy) jersey because teams with the history of Inter have classic jerseys to associate with. In other words, jerseys without the blight of sponsorship. (As an aside, I found a little history on the "red cross" jersey on Wikipedia and its article on FC Internazionale Milano):
Over commercialization of American foootball is an oxymoron. Have you watched a game lately? There is no need for shirt sponsors. There's a block of commercials every five minutes. And messing with baseball is almost an entirely different subject. Seems the diehard fans of baseball are mostly about the tradition. Mess with the tradition and people get outraged. There are plenty of fans out there that are still pissed off about the DH.
I try to find one nice thing to say about American football and it comes back in my face...! Serves me right, I suppose.
It hurts when I laugh so hard that soda comes out my nose... Soccer has no TV timeouts, but its fans do not resist over-commercialization - good one. Other sports are far more abused and over-commercialized, yet finally resisting something puts their fans in a better light. Whatever. You're getting outvoted 10 to 1, let it go.
I try to say one nice thing about American football (and basketball to boot) and it comes back in my face... twice! Serves me right I suppose. In fairness to myself, though, I made the point earlier that there is no apparent connection between shirt sponsors and TV timeouts (or not having them). And no one has been able to answer. You noticed that, too?! My kind of poll! I wouldn't be me if I wasn't in a minority like this at least some of the time! And the next time any of you guys try to brag here about being Old School - hah!- I took down your number! And also, I get to post pictures...! (An old Gypsy curse: May you run out to buy a jersey of your favorite woman soccer player and find that the sponsor's name on it is Maxi-Pads.)
You've brought up some good points. But your about 20 years too late for fighting against ads on the front of kits. That ship has sailed.