Football is probably the most tradition rich game on earth, you see those beautiful kits from the 70s with no silly sponsor, its seems surely the old-timers protested this practice at first. What brought this practice about. I know they need revenue, but geez. If the Yankees ever took the field with Microsoft on the front of the uniform, they'd burn down Yankee stadium.
I'm not arguing your essential point, that most of us would probably be a lot happier with the aesthetics of sponsor-less jersey. But the Yankees, financially-speaking as well as in terms of tradition, are the Barcelona of baseball. They don't need to get sponsorship money any more than Barca does, and it's a lot easier for the few teams in those priveliged positions to get all high-minded about not spoiling their jersey or their stadium (in the Yankees' case) with sponsor names. If putting a sponsor on their shirts became an accepted practice here, and gave the KC Royals (for example) enough money to sign an A-Rod or a top starting pitcher, they'd do it instantly, because they'd have to. The Yankees would not have to economically, and could continue to thrust their tradition in people's faces by flouting the fact. For that matter, look at how few teams in European soccer get corporate sponsor names on their stadia (granted, many of the stadiums are municipally owned, and the practice is spreading, especially among smaller teams), compared to its widespread practice here. This thread should be in The Beautiful Game, no?