PDA

View Full Version : Sponsor Logos on NFL Unis???


RTP2110
03-26-2009, 11:39 PM
Please please, no.

"It would be similar to logos worn on pro soccer jerseys,"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/2009/03/nfl-might-consi.html

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/03/26/league-preparing-to-cross-the-sponsorship-rubicon/

Specnatz
03-26-2009, 11:43 PM
Please please, no.



http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/2009/03/nfl-might-consi.html

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/03/26/league-preparing-to-cross-the-sponsorship-rubicon/

It is only practice jerseys ... who gives a care but once you do that it is all down hill and soon it will be on the regular season uni.

RTP2110
03-26-2009, 11:54 PM
Quick try at a ''soccer style'' NFL jersey

http://i327.photobucket.com/albums/k470/RTMFNP/GetAttachmentaspx.jpg

Hervoyel
03-27-2009, 12:01 AM
NFL owners all need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

They're basically destroying every single thing I love about the NFL one season at a time. It's like a death of thousand cuts as they turn this institution into something I have trouble recognizing some days.

Kaiser Toro
03-27-2009, 12:08 AM
Someone offered this up at corporate to find more revenue during a down time I am sure. Firstly, they will have to find the amount of dollars they will be losing with jersey sales, because no one will wear a sponsor like they do for Soccer. Secondly, advertising right now is a buyer's market with inventory everywhere.

It will be interesting to see what side Jerry Jones takes. I bet he will be against the sponsorship since he does not participate in the revenue sharing like all of the other teams do in jersey sales.

mexican_texan
03-27-2009, 12:29 AM
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/Manchester%20United.jpg

Hervoyel
03-27-2009, 01:09 AM
Someone offered this up at corporate to find more revenue during a down time I am sure. Firstly, they will have to find the amount of dollars they will be losing with jersey sales, because no one will wear a sponsor like they do for Soccer. Secondly, advertising right now is a buyer's market with inventory everywhere.

It will be interesting to see what side Jerry Jones takes. I bet he will be against the sponsorship since he does not participate in the revenue sharing like all of the other teams do in jersey sales.

Interesting that you mention the sponsors like they do for soccer and that mexican_texan posted that picture right after you said that. I almost bought that same jersey in the Sports Fan Attic in Willowbrook Mall. I'm not a big soccer fan but I love me some Manchester United.

Except I'm not wearing anything with a big "AIG" on the front of it. Not under normal circumstances and certainly not right now. If the NFL puts sponsors on their jerseys in any more noticable form than they do with the Nike swooshes and such today then I've bought my last jersey.

There is a line and if they cross it they'll cease to get my money at all. They aren't hurting. They're looking for new sources of revenue during these "difficult times". Those words have an entirely different meaning to the NFL owners than they do to us. Their idea of difficult times is that their profits don't go up by the usual 16% and they only make 11% more than they did the year before.

mexican_texan
03-27-2009, 01:12 AM
Interesting that you mention the sponsors like they do for soccer and that mexican_texan posted that picture right after you said that. I almost bought that same jersey in the Sports Fan Attic in Willowbrook Mall. I'm not a big soccer fan but I love me some Manchester United.

Except I'm not wearing anything with a big "AIG" on the front of it. Not under normal circumstances and certainly not right now. If the NFL puts sponsors on their jerseys in any more noticable form than they do with the Nike swooshes and such today then I've bought my last jersey.

There is a line and if they cross it they'll cease to get my money at all. They aren't hurting. They're looking for new sources of revenue during these "difficult times". Those words have an entirely different meaning to the NFL owners than they do to us. Their idea of difficult times is that their profits don't go up by the usual 16% and they only make 11% more than they did the year before.
Small world, I was at that store not too long ago looking to buy a Spain jersey.

Blazing Arrow
03-27-2009, 02:05 AM
Lets hope they do not do what NFL Europe does and project ads on the back side of the field during televised games.

CloakNNNdagger
03-27-2009, 07:21 AM
Interesting that you mention the sponsors like they do for soccer and that mexican_texan posted that picture right after you said that. I almost bought that same jersey in the Sports Fan Attic in Willowbrook Mall. I'm not a big soccer fan but I love me some Manchester United.

Except I'm not wearing anything with a big "AIG" on the front of it. Not under normal circumstances and certainly not right now. If the NFL puts sponsors on their jerseys in any more noticable form than they do with the Nike swooshes and such today then I've bought my last jersey.

There is a line and if they cross it they'll cease to get my money at all. They aren't hurting. They're looking for new sources of revenue during these "difficult times". Those words have an entirely different meaning to the NFL owners than they do to us. Their idea of difficult times is that their profits don't go up by the usual 16% and they only make 11% more than they did the year before.


They will still be able to squeeze that full 16% profit annual increase, if they just get more creative and aggressive.:gun:


http://www.gsdgsd.com/images/pletka_front.jpg

Showtime100
03-27-2009, 07:31 AM
Up next....the military.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/ShowtimeN15580/Pet%20Funny%20Misc/1xxxcharmarquenc0.jpg

Silver Oak
03-27-2009, 07:47 AM
the 'pocolypse is upon us.

Blake
03-27-2009, 08:11 AM
Today the practice jerseys.

Tomorrow, game jerseys.

sakebomb
03-27-2009, 08:18 AM
I'm sure MLB will be looking into it soon as well. I hope not. I couldn't stand looking at that McDonald's logo on the side of Japan's batting helmet during the WBC.

Errant Hothy
03-27-2009, 10:43 AM
So we all ok with the Reebok logo and the NFL Equipment logo on jerseys, right? And the helmet manufacturer's logo? And the Nike and Reebok logos on shoes? And the Under Armour logo, which is just about everywhere? And the Wilson logo on the ball? And the logos on the nets?

The point is the NFL is already saturated with logos on uniforms (and everywhere else for that matter), this is just a progression of that.

CloakNNNdagger
03-27-2009, 11:11 AM
ADVERTISING REACHES A NEW LOW (LITERALLY) (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.4thegame.com/media/00/04/56/stokegrass.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.4thegame.com/features/feature/221698/wacky_world_getting_grassed_up.html&usg=__AaPGMoFVdiXp2R3n4Az2K1FokPY=&h=200&w=256&sz=18&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=oExUvdPiO9odyM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dridiculous%2Bfootball%2B%2Badvertisem ents%26hl%3Den%26um%3D1)

While not quite reaching the ridiculous saturation levels of advertising of sports like Formula One, it's fair to say that football gets ever more commercial with each new season. It's not just the big boys like Manchester United and Chelsea who are willing to sell their souls for a quick buck either, as Stoke City have now come up with a revolutionary and quite bizarre new way of selling advertising space - blades of grass on their pitch.

However, this announcement does seem to be a bit more like an advertisement for Sky Sports and their Sky+ HD high-definition coverage of matches, rather than a serious attempt by the Potters to get firms to sign up to advertise on a blade of grass. Apparently, last season, Sky Sports HD broadcast over 300 hours' worth of football in high definition. With crisp, clear pictures and vivid colour, every single aspect of the ground can be scrutinised by viewers at home - this even includes the 50 million blades of grass under players' feet.

So Sky+ HD is working with Stoke to brand individual blades of grass on their pitch with sponsors' logos, so the high definition cameras can pick up the intricate detail, providing local advertisers with an innovative way of promoting their brand to viewers at home. Well, the viewers who are bored enough to want to use their hi-def coverage to zoom in on a blade of grass and look at an advert, anyway.

Andy Billingham, Stoke City's Head of Sales explained: "We were intrigued when Sky approached us with this unique idea. Now we're in the Premier League we're looking for ways to maximise our advertising and sponsorship, but we never thought of selling space on individual blades of grass! We're already speaking with one sponsor to see if we can move this forward."

Sky's Christian Cull said: "We're always looking for new and creative ways to make the most of our cutting edge technology. From beads of sweat on players' faces to tears of sadness or joy on fans in the crowd, our Sky+ HD cameras pick up every last detail. So why not investigate an opportunity like this with the one thing that's shown the most - the turf!"

Indeed. However, we have to say that we have some reservations. For a start, which poor sap from the Stoke groundstaff will be given the task of glueing these miniscule little corporate logos onto individual blades of grass, and how much will the CSI equipment that they'll need to do it cost? And who exactly would pay money to have their advert put on something that has footballers running all over it? Would they get a refund if the blade was broken during a match? How would they tell?

Yes, the season hasn't even started properly yet and we've already found the daftest story...
http://www.4thegame.com/media/00/04/56/stokegrass.jpg

disaacks3
03-27-2009, 11:24 AM
So we all ok with the Reebok logo and the NFL Equipment logo on jerseys, right? And the helmet manufacturer's logo? And the Nike and Reebok logos on shoes? And the Under Armour logo, which is just about everywhere? And the Wilson logo on the ball? And the logos on the nets?

The point is the NFL is already saturated with logos on uniforms (and everywhere else for that matter), this is just a progression of that. All of those are MANUFACTURER logos with the only exception being the NFL equipment logo (which is supposed to veify licensed merchandise).

That's a far cry from Gallery Furniture, Fred Haas Toyota World, Burger King, etc. - the thought of something like that on a Texans uni makes me want to barf.

Errant Hothy
03-27-2009, 11:44 AM
All of those are MANUFACTURER logos with the only exception being the NFL equipment logo (which is supposed to veify licensed merchandise).

That's a far cry from Gallery Furniture, Fred Haas Toyota World, Burger King, etc. - the thought of something like that on a Texans uni makes me want to barf.

Regardless if it's a manufacturers logo or not, it's still advertising on an NFL uniform. Or do Under Armour, Nike and Wilson not sell the same products to the general public?

Silver Oak
03-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Regardless if it's a manufacturers logo or not, it's still advertising on an NFL uniform. Or do Under Armour, Nike and Wilson not sell the same products to the general public?


all of the logos you refer to are what I would classify as subtle. what the consensus is in this thread is we don't want something similar to what say...Premeir League soccer has.

spurstexanstros
03-27-2009, 11:55 AM
I wonder what would be the sponsor logo on the Titan's jersies. My bet is something to do with moonshine,tobacco or mullett care products.
The Cowboys could be sponsored by the Texas department of corrections or plastic surgeons with the phrase "hey if we can make Skeletor look almost human, imagine what we can do with your wife." May be a bit long but its better than the forseeable future of Jerry putting his name infront of the Cowboys. "JERRY'S Dallas Cowboys"

Errant Hothy
03-27-2009, 11:58 AM
all of the logos you refer to are what I would classify as subtle. what the consensus is in this thread is we don't want something similar to what say...Premeir League soccer has.


I'd say small, not subtle. The UnderArmour logo's placement is in such a place that nearly ever shot of a player wearing their product gets the logo on tv. Same with Reebok.

Is that even what is being discussed by the NFL? All the NFL is doing is putting a logo on a practice jersey so that when that player is interviewed somebody gets some advertising that they paid for.

NASCAR does not suffer from this huge backlash for having sponsors, and it can be argueed that NASCAR is every bit as popular as the NFL. Why are football fans so opposed to this? Everything else in NFL is branded, from the stadiums, to the broadcast. Hell, we even have timeouts so that the TV broadcasters can run commercial breaks.

Would you be opposed to a sponsor's logo on a uniform if it lead to cheaper ticket prices?

mattieuk
03-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Up next....the military.

"And now over to the Middle East, for the latest progress report on Operation Enduring Freedom, brought to you by Miller Lite, the official beer of the coalition of the willing, its Great Taste...Less Filling means it is the only beverage General Craddock endorses for front line troops"

*Shudders*

I think advertisements on jerseys is a matter of time. It wasn't so long ago they were a foreign concept to the worlds of soccer and cricket, but hey, look what happened there.

ChampionTexan
03-27-2009, 12:14 PM
I'd say small, not subtle. The UnderArmour logo's placement is in such a place that nearly ever shot of a player wearing their product gets the logo on tv. Same with Reebok.

Is that even what is being discussed by the NFL? All the NFL is doing is putting a logo on a practice jersey so that when that player is interviewed somebody gets some advertising that they paid for.

NASCAR does not suffer from this huge backlash for having sponsors, and it can be argueed that NASCAR is every bit as popular as the NFL. Why are football fans so opposed to this? Everything else in NFL is branded, from the stadiums, to the broadcast. Hell, we even have timeouts so that the TV broadcasters can run commercial breaks.

Would you be opposed to a sponsor's logo on a uniform if it lead to cheaper ticket prices?

I honestly believe that most of those expressing a huge problem with it are in the same vein as the sanctimonious pinheads who had a huge problem with the wildcard and interleague play in MLB. How much complaining have you noticed about that in the last couple of years.

It's not a problem in NASCAR, and it doesn't seem to inhibit the popularity (or the game experience) of soccer. The vast majority of those complaining will end up griping for a half a season or so (if something is done with the game uniforms), and then assimilate. I won't say I'm looking forward to it, but if the Texans game day uniform - or any other team - has a FedEx logo on it, I'm a little hard pressed to see how that should decrease my enjoyment of the sport I love.

spurstexanstros
03-27-2009, 01:07 PM
I honestly believe that most of those expressing a huge problem with it are in the same vein as the sanctimonious pinheads who had a huge problem with the wildcard and interleague play in MLB. How much complaining have you noticed about that in the last couple of years.

It's not a problem in NASCAR, and it doesn't seem to inhibit the popularity (or the game experience) of soccer. The vast majority of those complaining will end up griping for a half a season or so (if something is done with the game uniforms), and then assimilate. I won't say I'm looking forward to it, but if the Texans game day uniform - or any other team - has a FedEx logo on it, I'm a little hard pressed to see how that should decrease my enjoyment of the sport I love.

First of all Nascar...not a sport. ( a skill)
Second it works in Nascar because sponsorship is based on the individual driver/owner's success. Will sponsors like having their logo on someone who constantly false starts or who got out of jail for running a dog fighting ring. Also , in Nascar what else are you gonna look at for three hours..drivers making left turns...the Cameras focus on the cars for the majority of the time and it makes sense to have moving billboards. Football is faster paced event in which there is not alot of downtime between plays and when there is ther is a commercial of some sort playing.

There just isnt a logical argument for the uni ads. Why do they need it. There is plenty of advertising through in game ads and traditional commercials as well as the bombardment of pop up ads that are on Fox and CBS. Why do we need Uni-adds? It is necessary in Europe because most TV is owned by the government with little air space for sale (compared to ours).

As for the DH and interleague...they do suck and have watered down the product. Wildcard...who has complained about that...no one who loves the Astros because that is how they have made the playoffs for the most part.

Second Honeymoon
03-27-2009, 01:56 PM
It is only practice jerseys ... who gives a care but once you do that it is all down hill and soon it will be on the regular season uni.

I agree Spec, but it does get us one step closer to corporate logos on game jerseys. I for one, don't think the NFL would be stupid enough to mess with the 'fabric' of their game. Practice jerseys is one thing and I have no problem with that but I wonder if its leaguewide or individually negotiated. If it is individually negotiated you are talking about favoring the large market teams more than they already are, and that may not bode well with some ownership groups.

The only thing I would accept is an 5-year agreement on practice jerseys where everyone would have the same sponsors and get equal money per franchise. The NFL would then sign a binding agreement where there is a moratorium on corporate logos on game jerseys for 10 years. Yeah, its socialism but its also good sportsmanship and promotes competitive balance small v. large market. We don't want our NFL becoming MLB where payrolls are so unbalanced.

If ain't broke, don't fix it. Practice is one

Errant Hothy
03-27-2009, 02:09 PM
I agree Spec, but it does get us one step closer to corporate logos on game jerseys. I for one, don't think the NFL would be stupid enough to mess with the 'fabric' of their game. Practice jerseys is one thing and I have no problem with that but I wonder if its leaguewide or individually negotiated. If it is individually negotiated you are talking about favoring the large market teams more than they already are, and that may not bode well with some ownership groups.

The only thing I would accept is an 5-year agreement on practice jerseys where everyone would have the same sponsors and get equal money per franchise. The NFL would then sign a binding agreement where there is a moratorium on corporate logos on game jerseys for 10 years. Yeah, its socialism but its also good sportsmanship and promotes competitive balance small v. large market. We don't want our NFL becoming MLB where payrolls are so unbalanced.

If ain't broke, don't fix it. Practice is one

Nothing jacks with the "fabric" of the game like tv time-outs! But nobody bitches about them.

NFL payrolls are balanced due to the cap, which has a ceiling and a floor. It has nothing to due with money from sponsors.

ChampionTexan
03-27-2009, 02:29 PM
Will sponsors like having their logo on someone who constantly false starts or who got out of jail for running a dog fighting ring. .

I don't see the level of this going to individual players, and if a player gets a DUI, or runs into other legal troubles, I doubt it will impact the team's advertisers any more than it does now. I don't think Nike was complaining to the NFL/Vikings about Jared Allen's illegal hits on QB's simply because their logo was on his uni. If the NFL/Falcons advertisers didn't pull their accounts two years ago because of Vick, they won't for something like this - if they did (and I don't know whether any did or not), they probably will again (or won't sign up to begin with). It will simply be part of the risk/reward decision the NFL and potential advertisers use when deciding if and when to do this.

If I'm wrong, and it does go to individual players, it's still no different than Nike initially deciding to hire Michael Vick, or HEB deciding to hire David Carr. It's a risk they take, and they need to analyze it before making the decision, and do the same if it takes a downward turn like it did with Vick - and to a lesser extent Carr.

There just isnt a logical argument for the uni ads. Why do they need it. There is plenty of advertising through in game ads and traditional commercials as well as the bombardment of pop up ads that are on Fox and CBS. Why do we need Uni-adds? It is necessary in Europe because most TV is owned by the government with little air space for sale (compared to ours).

This translates to "They already make enough money, and shouldn't be allowed to make anymore". First, it's their business, and who are you (or anyone) to tell them when they're making enough money. Secondly, if it makes them money, the sad reality is they don't (and shouldn't) care whether you like it or not. If there's enough of a backlash (as with MLB and the Spiderman bases a couple of years ago), then they'll figure out it's more trouble than it's worth, but if a strong enough backlash doesn't exist (which is my guess), then they'll look at the net return and probably do it.

As for the DH and interleague...they do suck and have watered down the product. Wildcard...who has complained about that...no one who loves the Astros because that is how they have made the playoffs for the most part.

Didn't say anything about the DH, but the reality is I don't like it, MLB doesn't care, and I'm okay with that. Plenty of folks claimed that two extra playoff teams in each league "damaged the integrity of the sport", and as to interleague - this is the best example of my point. There's a small group of folks who still don't like it. They are in the minority, they don't say much anymore, and MLB doesn't care about them. With a few, rare exceptions, I'm willing to bet none of them watch fewer baseball games because of it.

Blake
03-27-2009, 02:33 PM
Would you be opposed to a sponsor's logo on a uniform if it lead to cheaper ticket prices?

Lol @ you for thinking we would get $$$ out of this.

Second Honeymoon
03-27-2009, 02:37 PM
Nothing jacks with the "fabric" of the game like tv time-outs! But nobody bitches about them.

NFL payrolls are balanced due to the cap, which has a ceiling and a floor. It has nothing to due with money from sponsors.

fabric was a play on words. double entendre. i meant they wouldn't mess with the game jerseys, which in essence are a fabric of the game. the whole time out thing is what it is. Its bad for the players and for the fans at the game live, but its not that bad. It's a pretty brutal game, I don't mind a break every so often for the guys on the field. it can screw up momentum though and I get that point...its just the price you pay to get multi-billion dollar TV deals....

they could put them on the gamejerseys one day...never know. i mean, having logos on practice jerseys gets us one step closer to having them on game jerseys but I just dont think the owners would do it. It would not go over well. NFL jerseys are great just like they are.

Kaiser Toro
03-27-2009, 03:06 PM
If I were the players union, I would offer the following statement:

We would like to see what studies the league has done on the impact of future jersey revenue by allowing advertising on game jerseys since that is where we are logically going. Should these studies conclude that there will be no risk to jersey sales and we will see net growth in revenue from each line of business, the players union believes this would be an opportune profit pool to draw from for our current and future retired players health benefits and pensions.

Although we do not believe the advertising dollars gained will offset the losses in player jersey sales revenue we are more than happy to share in the profitability of this new line of business as our partnership over the years has been fruitful for so many.
------------------------

If the players want to get the fans in their corner due to the backroom wrestling that is going with the CBA they have the opportunity to gain the high ground in the domains of integrity and taking care of the players, which in the court of public opinion is huge during labor strife in sports.

Double Barrel
03-27-2009, 03:11 PM
It is only a matter of time. Money talks.

I don't like it, but it has never mattered what I (or we, for that matter) like or dislike. Money talks.

Kaiser Toro
03-27-2009, 03:13 PM
It is only a matter of time. Money talks.

I don't like it, but it has never mattered what I (or we, for that matter) like or dislike. Money talks.

It sure does DB, but until they can prove it is not a zero sum game, only the advertisers win. I will not buy a jersey with any sponsor on it, and jerseys are a significant revenue stream and branding vehicle for the NFL.

Double Barrel
03-27-2009, 03:15 PM
It sure does DB, but until they can prove it is not a zero sum game, only the advertisers win. I will not buy a jersey with any sponsor on it, and jerseys are a significant revenue stream and branding vehicle for the NFL.

yep. But we are now 'old school'. The younger generation won't know the difference and will accept it as reality. They will buy those jerseys because they don't know any better. And that is the market with the most disposable income anyway.

Errant Hothy
03-27-2009, 03:18 PM
It sure does DB, but until they can prove it is not a zero sum game, only the advertisers win. I will not buy a jersey with any sponsor on it, and jerseys are a significant revenue stream and branding vehicle for the NFL.

You mean other then Reebok and NFL Equipment, right? Reebok is both sponsor and manufacturer.

Kaiser Toro
03-27-2009, 03:22 PM
yep. But we are now 'old school'. The younger generation won't know the difference and will accept it as reality. They will buy those jerseys because they don't know any better. And that is the market with the most disposable income anyway.

I hear you once again, but the reality is that there will be latency via adoption. With this the NFL is best not being the first to move. Let a needier league like Baseball go through the trial and tribulations first. Football is the best product on the field and can take any share of advertising dollars they want.

Kaiser Toro
03-27-2009, 03:25 PM
You mean other then Reebok and NFL Equipment, right? Reebok is both sponsor and manufacturer.

Show we where there is display advertsing on any uniform as opposed to a manufacturer logo and then your arguement will be germane.

Double Barrel
03-27-2009, 03:32 PM
I hear you once again, but the reality is that there will be latency via adoption. With this the NFL is best not being the first to move. Let a needier league like Baseball go through the trial and tribulations first. Football is the best product on the field and can take any share of advertising dollars they want.

This is true. MLB would seem like a potential candidate for a test drive.

You just wait for the day when cities no longer have associations with sports teams but corporations do. Then, they could just move the FedEx Cowboys (or whoever) to various cities that have the facilities to play in. Talk about being some pissed off old geezers one day! :mcnugget: