Adidas Lands NHL Uniform Contract for 2017-18 and Beyond

[IceCap]

Ryan Lambert defends sweater ads in his usual all-knowing, copy-editing-resistant sneer. With this in mind, I've officially gone from not wanting ads on sweaters to leading an armed insurrection, if necessary, against ads on sweaters.

You could probably seize NHL headquarters with less men then it would take to capture Paris.

[The_Admiral]

One of the many great passages in The Instigator is the one about how the league office under John Ziegler was just a couple of empty rooms with paneling, old couches, and cheap paintings of horses on the walls. You couldn't get more Michigan/Ontario Basement Family Room than this if you had old neon beer signs on the wall and some deer antlers half-heartedly inherited from some distant dead great-uncle.

[IceCap]

You just described my grandparents' old basement.

I'm always amused by the fact that the NHL, longer than other pro leagues, was just a circuit old rich guys ran in their spare time.

I'd say the league's improved in that respect, but maybe it hasn't been for the best. It still seems like the same half-arsed organisation. It's just pantomiming as a proper modern sports league.
Like when North Korea thinks they'll gain more respect internationally by building a big hotel.

[AnPheitseog]

If jersey ads mean i can buy a subscription package for 68$ and a jersey for about the same like I can for the KHL, where do I go to sign up?

[hockey week]

If jersey ads mean i can buy a subscription package for 68$ and a jersey for about the same like I can for the KHL, where do I go to sign up?

you really, honestly think that the revenue gained by ads will be passed on as savings to the consumer? Really? Really...?

[AnPheitseog]

If jersey ads mean i can buy a subscription package for 68$ and a jersey for about the same like I can for the KHL, where do I go to sign up?

you really, honestly think that the revenue gained by ads will be passed on as savings to the consumer? Really? Really...?

i doubt it, very much. but IF it does, im all for it.

[The_Admiral]

All it will mean is that more time and space in your life will have advertising in it.

[Gothamite]

If jersey ads mean i can buy a subscription package for 68$ and a jersey for about the same like I can for the KHL, where do I go to sign up?

you really, honestly think that the revenue gained by ads will be passed on as savings to the consumer? Really? Really...?

i doubt it, very much. but IF it does, im all for it.

It won't.

[Sterling84v2.0]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/in-defense-of-ads-on-nhl-jerseys--trending-topics-201052045.html

I don't dispute many of the facts this article details. Particularly that team logos are themselves "ads" or that makers marks are "ads" or that we got over ads on dasher boards and ads under the ice.

I will even admit that I actually PREFER ads on dasher boards as opposed to naked ones. Over my lifetime I've been conditioned that sponsored events are more legitimate or big time and unsponsored ones aren't. We could argue the merits of that mindset or how consumerism has impacted our culture separately; and I'd probably be willing to discuss my hypocrisy in depth. But that's how I feel. I also reject the idea that "NASCARism" is bad in and of itself. I like how race suits and cars look. I like corporate branding. I find it interesting. Not AS interesting as sports marketing, but interesting non-the-less. I got excited when Kevin Harvick agreed to terms with Jimmy John's cause I LOVE Jimmy John's and have always wanted a cap. But I never wanted to work there to get one. I was so excited when DeWalt rejoined with Matt Kenseth. That feels "right". As right as the Brewers bringing back the ball in glove. Those two paired up seems correct. I was bummed when Chelsea and Samsung parted ways cause I love my TV. If we're going to discuss all this we should be willing to discuss our super complicated relationship with the products we buy and the companies we patronize and in some cases work for. I used to work for M&I Bank and would encourage folks in management to FURTHER our sponsorship presence as a point of pride in the workplace. I wanted do design a car to run at the Milwaukee Mile basically. :-) All these years later they've been acquired by BMO Harris and were/are title sponsors on the Bradley Center. I'm a little jealous to not have that connection to my hometown teams. As sick as that is...it makes sense right? It's never quite black and white.

And I will further even ADD to this author's point....almost every change in sports at large has been for ad revenue. The 2 minute warning was implemented for ads...not strategic game purposes. So...........there's all of that to consider.

While I feel all of that is true? I still don't want jersey ads if at all possible. I won't welcome that because we all hate change instinctively. I don't think we generally have a full understanding of the financials of these teams. The public stadium financing is a rabbit hole of bad. And so is the idea that teams are "losing" money. Professional sports teams are almost always (now) part of a VERY wealthy person's (or groups of persons) portfolio of multiple revenue streams. You can make the argument that if profits were the only goal these individuals could invest in grocery chains or department stores instead. Teams are not income sources....they are vanity investments; they are memberships in inter and intra-national country clubs of the super influential. And oftentimes they are strategically accounted for specifically BECAUSE they "lose" money on paper to offset profits elsewhere within the convoluted corporate umbrella. NBA owners can depreciate their rosters like you or I would our furniture or printers. What!?!?! They already have tons of built-in advantages and so far tend to make all their profits when they sell. You can revere the people who founded these leagues and took the actual risks if you want to...but the modern day franchise owner assumes very little actual risk.... In other words, the goals of sports franchises in a healthy society should NOT simply be to make profits. Not really. They shouldn't be. Their goal should be there to win games (get bragging rights) and be embassadors for their communities. Some things in society should be quarantined outside of the free markets...the press, the prison system etc. But I digress.

Random thought....I think there's a sports salaries/regional cable TV/ cord cutter bubble coming our way that is going to blow some of this up anyway.

But the real reason I don't want to bless this NHL talk as inevitable is not because it'll be an affront to decency. The NHL of all leagues is probably best suited to absorb this simply because they have the most garment real estate to work with. What I fear is that the NHL DOES make the colors match like the Bruins/Dunkin Donuts mockup and people DO come to accept it. IF that happens (which is 50/50 IMO) then the NBA, NFL and MLB will almost certainly feel emboldened further to do the same and sooner.

And particularly in football and basketball there of course just isn't room to make it look even close to OK. The NFL has jersey ads in practice but they are hideous and are often sewn onto jerseys that don't have all the stripes of the game jerseys. We all gather here to gripe about the disappearing of jersey stripes as it is........I can't imagine how bad it would get with NFL jersey ads. Gross.

So put me down as against please. But I'll admit I'm not pure on the issue. If it's a brand I'm fond of it would honestly be very different than if it weren't. And that adds a really uncomfortable dynamic to the mix. I'm already torn sometimes do I like that player or the team. And now another variable to consider....

[CreamSoda]

The biggest argument I keep seeing for ads on jerseys is that we have been seeing them for years. They are referring to the Reebok/Nike/CCM logo on the jersey itself.

But that is completely irrelevant. That is a company's product so of course they are going to brand it. It's the same way a Pepsi Can has the pepsi logo on it. You are branding your product. The Reebok sweater is their product, they made it.

If you instead throw a Pepsi logo on the sweater, you are now adding a completely arbitrary sponsor to a jersey. There is no relevancy for that product to be on the jersey, expect to make money. That would be completely different than seeing the RBK logo on the back on the sweater and to me is awful for the game. There are enough ads on the boards and ice already, enough is enough.

[The_Admiral]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/in-defense-of-ads-on-nhl-jerseys--trending-topics-201052045.html

I don't dispute many of the facts this article details. Particularly that team logos are themselves "ads" or that makers marks are "ads" or that we got over ads on dasher boards and ads under the ice.

Be careful aligning yourself with a twitter troll, half-assed social justice warrior, and professional writer who doesn't know how to proofread.

I would dispute that team logos are advertisements in the traditional sense. Sports teams wear their teams' insignias on their uniforms when they play, but it's not to raise brand awareness or make a call to action. Yes, they let you know who's playing, but that's what they're supposed to do. Manufacturer logos on equipment are a grey area, as there absolutely is value in the visibility and tacit endorsement that attends using that equipment in NHL games, but it's a fair trade, and still within the fabric of the game (you need people to make hockey sticks for you to play) on a level that, say, Dunkin' Donuts is not (you need a bad donut chain to buy ad space so you can...afford an overpaid contract?).

I don't care for dasher ads, but at least the NHL wised up and mandated white bases for them so the dashers don't look like pure walls of billboards. I don't find on-ice ads palatable at all.

What I dislike more than anything is this ugly neoliberal attitude that we all need to bend over and take it from commerce at every turn because we can't live without it and we'll come to like it eventually. I refuse to believe that the league's survival hinges on ads on uniforms, no matter how much the Canadian dollar craters. There needs to be a line in the sand here, if not for how intrusive the advertisements actually are but on the bare principle of it all. You pay for cable, you pay extra for the RSN that carries the games, you nevertheless sit through advertisements during stoppages, the dashers have ads, the ice has ads, the glass has ads superimposed on it, the score bug has ads during uneven strength (for such a trainwreck of the league, at least companies are willing to buy time and space in it, I guess). And this is something you watch for fun at the end of the day -- it's not billboards on the side of the expressway or inside a subway car or on the radio station that keeps the workplace from being eerily silent or anything that you have to suffer through. Just for the sake of saying so, there needs to be a point where people say enough is enough. Don't let the capgeek crap bamboozle you into rooting for revenue. If you can merely tolerate ads on uniforms, fine, I don't blame you; the battle has probably been lost already anyway. But if you're actively rooting for this to happen, you should probably rip your own heart out and broil it.

[OnWis97]

His first shot: "It is new and therefore bad." So which CCLSC member is this? Which of the "you only like classic uniforms because of nostalgia" drum-beaters? Show yourself.

I am not familiar with this guy but...

Shot at the dissenters that presumes he can read their minds? Check.

Shot at hockey fans? Check.

It's OK because it's not soccer-style? Check.

Silly assumption that the "big leagues" will have the ads "blend in." Check.

Not understanding the (slightly) nuanced difference between the team logo and the corporate sponsor? Check.

"It's already on the practice jerseys?" Check.

Adds are already on the boards and the scorebug? Check.

It's going to be beneficial to the fans? Half a check. He at least does not buy the notion that ticket prices go down.

The manufacturer's logos are already there. Big Miss

Takes a shot at the perceived political leanings of his detractors? Miss.

"The teams already change their jersey designs, anyway." That's a new one. But, check.

Well done, overall, but I give it a B-. He really dropped the ball on the manufacturer logo.

Sadly, he's right. We got used to the ads on the board and on the ice. This is not only happening but two years later, we'll be at full acceptance. Only us CCSLC weirdos will still be lamenting.

[The_Admiral]

Ryan Lambert's delicate heart can't write the word "Blackhawks" in his weekly around-the-league writeups. He writes out all the other team names but only puts "Chicago."

[T-ROY]

The biggest argument I keep seeing for ads on jerseys is that we have been seeing them for years. They are referring to the Reebok/Nike/CCM logo on the jersey itself.

But that is completely irrelevant. That is a company's product so of course they are going to brand it. It's the same way a Pepsi Can has the pepsi logo on it. You are branding your product. The Reebok sweater is their product, they made it.

If you instead throw a Pepsi logo on the sweater, you are now adding a completely arbitrary sponsor to a jersey. There is no relevancy for that product to be on the jersey, expect to make money. That would be completely different than seeing the RBK logo on the back on the sweater and to me is awful for the game. There are enough ads on the boards and ice already, enough is enough.

...and on the glass, on the scoreboard, over the loudspeaker, throughout the halls and concessions, sometimes on the seats, bathrooms and so on and so on. There is no need to have ads on jerseys. It's irrelevant revenue, then again this is the NHL we're talking about.

[Sterling84v2.0]

Yikes! OK. Quick couple clarifications. I'm not aligning myself with anyone... let alone that author. I'm picking up on your hints that he's sort of a d-bag? I believe it. When one reads that piece it stinks of "league mouthpiece" trying to sell me on something.

I only linked to it because A) It was on Uniwatch ticker this morning. Figured half of you had already seen it and Those facts or fact-adjacent tidbits are still true or true-ish and got me thinking more about the issue. They may be recurring arguments badly made in favor of uniform ads. I'm not arguing that. But often there are familiar factoids trotted out and used lazily in bad arguments. We have to learn to navigate around them sometimes; debunk them sometimes; and other times concede the smaller points but destroy their connection to the larger narrative.

I don't want uniform ads. Don't want em.

But I'm just trying to not be naive here. I'm willing to admit that ads work and therefore I'm torn on the issue at least in theory a little bit.

I liked it when Lambeau was being renovated there was talk that we'd sell naming rights to gates or the concourse specifically so that the stadium name could remain sponsor free as it should be. Something like that works better for me.

On the one hand I love synergy and "Synergy". How else could I have been playing Lego Jurassic World with my kids today? Would have had to build generic Lego dinosaurs using my "imagination" and just hummed the music in my head.

On the other hand? Synergies downside is a hotel chain making team policy for the Minnesota Vikings last year. Synergy would also quite naturally create an undesirable heirarchy if uniform ads come to pass. The Rangers and Lakers of the world might strike deals with Visa or Mercedes or Coke and the Buffalos and Winnipegs might get left with the smaller sponsors......look "lesser" by comparison and still not keep up in terms of ad revenue vs the big boys and girls. Nothing illustrates that better than NASCAR where the bottom 10-15 teams cannot even afford paint schemes or sponsors with national name recognition.

Plus, again, to use a racing example.....the series is sponsored by a telecomm giant and that trickled down to disrupt team sponsorships with other telecomms. What teams could arrange deals with Pepsi if Coca-Cola were the official league beverage etc.

It just gets too annoying to contemplate....a team with a Chevy deal playing in an arena sponsored by Ford? As the opponent even...

Yuck..

So I'm against it. I'm just trying to be a little honest here. I don't think advertising is an unmitigated social ill. But as I said...a healthy society knows where to draw those lines.

Also, is it a liberal thing to bow to commerce at all costs? I view that as a conservative viewpoint....that the profit motive fixes everything. It's the Bill Maher's of the world who like to remind us when prisons and newscorps and newspapers were loss leaders. The right wants to privatize everything. What am I missing there? I too prefer to straddle the line acknowledging how capitalism has benefited our society WHILE consciously carving out areas where I think it's inappropriate. It's illegal to sell your organs or your citizenship after all. There are always limits.

[The_Admiral]

Not liberalism but neoliberalism. Think Rahm Emanuel, or how supporting marriage equality is the right thing to do because of what it would mean for your brand. #brand

[BrianLion]

Not liberalism but neoliberalism. Think Rahm Emanuel, or how supporting marriage equality is the right thing to do because of what it would mean for your brand. #brand

it's amazing that equal rights in this country is now considered a "neoliberal" idea.

Why wouldn't a company want to make itself accessible to as many consumers as possible? It's fundamental business not a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

While I'm against ads on jerseys, (and not quite sure what it has to do with marriage equality in the US), I don't think it's the economic slam dunk some are convinced it will be. At some point you reach a critical mass or saturation point, where the returns of advertising diminish. I dont know for certain ads on jerseys are it, but if I'm Pepsi and I'm the "Official Soft Drink of the NFL" and I'm airing multiple commercials during the broadcasts, and I'm served at the snack bars in many parks, and I have giant neon signs all over Texas Stadium, etc. what does jersey advertising on top of all that do for me?

[The_Admiral]

it's amazing that equal rights in this country is now considered a "neoliberal" idea.

Why wouldn't a company want to make itself accessible to as many consumers as possible? It's fundamental business not a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Who cares whether it's morally the right thing to do? Planning all those gay weddings is a huge brand extension!

[hockey week]

Not liberalism but neoliberalism. Think Rahm Emanuel, or how supporting marriage equality is the right thing to do because of what it would mean for your brand. #brand

it's amazing that equal rights in this country is now considered a "neoliberal" idea.

Why wouldn't a company want to make itself accessible to as many consumers as possible? It's fundamental business not a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

While I'm against ads on jerseys, (and not quite sure what it has to do with marriage equality in the US), I don't think it's the economic slam dunk some are convinced it will be. At some point you reach a critical mass or saturation point, where the returns of advertising diminish. I dont know for certain ads on jerseys are it, but if I'm Pepsi and I'm the "Official Soft Drink of the NFL" and I'm airing multiple commercials during the broadcasts, and I'm served at the snack bars in many parks, and I have giant neon signs all over Texas Stadium, etc. what does jersey advertising on top of all that do for me?

Photos.

That's why the NBA bans their players from getting tattoos of corporate logos (they consider the body to be part of the uniform), because in every photo in every newspaper and online recap and poster and so on, that logo would get all sorts of free press.

When dasher ads first became a thing, tv networks tried to avoid showing them, they'd cut to a closeup of the skates near those few ads, because they didn't want those logos on air getting free advertising. Uniform manufacturer logos do the same thing, they advertise a brand in every photo, poster, and so on. I remember laughing at a Nike shoe commercial that featured NFL players...in reebok jerseys. They couldn't avoid it, and it made it so something other than the swoosh was in their commercials.

Ads on the jerseys do the same thing, constant, guerrilla advertising...and that's why it needs to be stopped.

[BrianLion]

Not liberalism but neoliberalism. Think Rahm Emanuel, or how supporting marriage equality is the right thing to do because of what it would mean for your brand. #brand

it's amazing that equal rights in this country is now considered a "neoliberal" idea.

Why wouldn't a company want to make itself accessible to as many consumers as possible? It's fundamental business not a liberal or conservative viewpoint.

While I'm against ads on jerseys, (and not quite sure what it has to do with marriage equality in the US), I don't think it's the economic slam dunk some are convinced it will be. At some point you reach a critical mass or saturation point, where the returns of advertising diminish. I dont know for certain ads on jerseys are it, but if I'm Pepsi and I'm the "Official Soft Drink of the NFL" and I'm airing multiple commercials during the broadcasts, and I'm served at the snack bars in many parks, and I have giant neon signs all over Texas Stadium, etc. what does jersey advertising on top of all that do for me?

Photos.

That's why the NBA bans their players from getting tattoos of corporate logos (they consider the body to be part of the uniform), because in every photo in every newspaper and online recap and poster and so on, that logo would get all sorts of free press.

When dasher ads first became a thing, tv networks tried to avoid showing them, they'd cut to a closeup of the skates near those few ads, because they didn't want those logos on air getting free advertising. Uniform manufacturer logos do the same thing, they advertise a brand in every photo, poster, and so on. I remember laughing at a Nike shoe commercial that featured NFL players...in reebok jerseys. They couldn't avoid it, and it made it so something other than the swoosh was in their commercials.

Ads on the jerseys do the same thing, constant, guerrilla advertising...and that's why it needs to be stopped.

I agree with you on why it's done. My question is however just what kind of "value" are they getting from that, which they arent already getting from the myriad other sponsorships related to the sport? Sure, I'll see a Pepsi logo on Tony Romo on ESPN.com and on the weekly highlights, but is that alleged "gain" ever been weighed against a potential cost? At a certain point the public just becomes numb to advertising unless it's really creative or has some shock value. Does merely seeing "Budwesier" on Henrik Lunqvist's sweater make more NYers buy cheap beer?