MLB Changes 2017

[guest23]

10 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

well that's how it used to be.  Some teams (Dallas, NYY for example) actually have tried (or succeeded) to cut their own deals in spite of league-wide deals.  I don't recall the Cowboys' situation exactly, but I vaguely recall that it had to do with Nike, before Nike was one of the licensed manufacturers (early/mid 90s... I think.)

 

One of the overlooked "benefits" to the league-wide deals is revenue sharing.  It's much easier to do the accounting and divy things up when you aren't relying on each team to report their revenue from their deals.

 

Also, exclusivity comes at a premium.  It's reasonable to assume that an exclusive contract with one company for 30 teams would be worth more than the sum of 5 contracts with 5 companies each servicing 6 teams.

 

Not sure if I was l clear enough, but the scenario I was trying to lay out would be for mlb properties outfitting the entire league akin to  nfl pro line product that does not carry a maker's mark. If mlb was to take their merch in house your revenue sharing model remains intact so there's no worries there.  The benefits to the exclusivity contract is solely for the benefit of the leagues. The licensees would love to be able to cherry pick the most revenue generating profitable teams while the bottom half of the league would struggle to find apparel sponsors.

 

The cowboys situation was a bit of a unique situation. While teams were still cutting their own deals at the time they still had to work with nfl approve licensees who obviously paid a fee to be an official supplier. Nike was only authorized for footwear at the time which undermined the league office. That season the cowboys went with unbranded uniforms and logo-less sideline aopparel meaning the cowboys logo was not even on the gear. The following year nike became an official apparel supplier. As a byproduct, the cowboys are now part of the exclusive uniform supplier contract but they have opted out of the revenue sharing deal which also means they sell and distribute all of their merchandise independent of the league.

[guest23]

11 hours ago, kroywen said:

I really would love to know the reaction by the Yankees' FO to this. There was one quote going around in some articles from Under Armour's founder that really jumped out to me:

 

Bloomberg

 

I'm figuring there's two potential things going on here. The likely option is that UA got the Yanks to agree to a front logo. Alternatively, they could be trying to persuade the Yanks' FO to agree by mentioning the immense money-making opportunities for all involved parties.

 

But in all likelihood, this is their way of subtly signaling that they got the biggest fish in the tank. And I'd love to know what it took to get that to happen (up to and including MLB stepping in and telling the Yanks that they can't get an exemption).

 

I would not be surprised if the yanks gave mlb and ua a big FU and refuses to wear the logo. Since this is franchise business model they have every right to fight it and potentially take it to court which could be a huge mess with the antitrust exemption. More likely I think we will see a compromise where the logo either gets moved to the sleeve or the logo only appears on retail product.

[OnWis97]

8 hours ago, bwburke94 said:

With soccer, you don't have mid-game advertisements (except at half) so jersey ads were the best way to advertise and became a tradition.

 

The American "Big Four" sports are a bit different in that regard.

Maybe.  Part of it is that soccer sort of "comes from Europe."  For whatever reason, North American sports leagues are the only ones with history of not featuring sponsorship.  So when MLS gets going, they are representing a sport that we sort of recognize as doing this because it's "from Europe."  Additionally, the "Big 4" were already established.  Because MLS was viewed as upstart, had no long-time tradition here, and,was trying to bring a (at the time) fringe sport into the big time, I am sure the level of acceptance was higher than if, say, the NFL had just thrown corporate logos at us in 1996.

 

I am sure uniform advertisements will never touch TV commercials for revenue, but some fans still will make that connection.  So the NBA corporate logo will bug some fans  but enough to make a difference in attendance or TV viewership.  The only way this is not going to grow is if some marketing people decide that a few million bucks per team, per year (or one non-household-name) is not worth diluting/sharing the brand.  It's not looking like that's going to happen.

[Thomas]

10 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

What's the difference? 

Soccer jerseys are already a mess, adidas 3 stripes everywhere, and new designs every year. Huge ad on the front. Soccer jersey fashion changes like the 4 seasons.

 

The greatest uniforms in baseball only have subtle changes every 10 or 20 years. 

Soccer jerseys = Messy fashion statements.

Baseball jerseys = Timeless classy tradition.

[OnWis97]

16 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Soccer jerseys are already a mess, adidas 3 stripes everywhere, and new designs every year. Huge ad on the front. Soccer jersey fashion changes like the 4 seasons.

 

The greatest uniforms in baseball only have subtle changes every 10 or 20 years. 

Soccer jerseys = Messy fashion statements.

Baseball jerseys = Timeless classy tradition.

Yeah, North American sports do tend to have more focus on history and long-running franchises.  The more corporate the uniforms become, the more the uniforms just change from year-to-year.  I don't really know how often they change in futbol, but if we get to the point of the WNBA's sponsor-to-team ratio, then historic franchises will be changing uniforms every few years when sponsor deals change...maybe something like that would keep the leagues from going all the way.

[bosrs1]

12 hours ago, bwburke94 said:

With soccer, you don't have mid-game advertisements (except at half) so jersey ads were the best way to advertise and became a tradition.

 

The American "Big Four" sports are a bit different in that regard.

 

Exactly. They put jersey ads in baseball I demand all commercials be pulled from the game except during the 7th inning stretch. Same with football, that guy with the orange sleeves on the sideline better be taken out with extreme prejudice if they put soccer style ads on their jerseys.

[Stu-BallsOmnicorp]

3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Yeah, North American sports do tend to have more focus on history and long-running franchises.  The more corporate the uniforms become, the more the uniforms just change from year-to-year.  I don't really know how often they change in futbol, but if we get to the point of the WNBA's sponsor-to-team ratio, then historic franchises will be changing uniforms every few years when sponsor deals change...maybe something like that would keep the leagues from going all the way.

Soccer teams tend to change their uniforms every year. Some teams used to change every other year, but now it seems to be every year. 

[TheOldRoman]

8 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

I would not be surprised if the yanks gave mlb and ua a big FU and refuses to wear the logo. Since this is franchise business model they have every right to fight it and potentially take it to court which could be a huge mess with the antitrust exemption. More likely I think we will see a compromise where the logo either gets moved to the sleeve or the logo only appears on retail product.

 

I hope so, but I fear that died with George. In the past few years, we've seen the Yankees wear BP caps during games, wearing red hats with stars and stripes on the logo and wearing jerseys with camouflage numbers. George would have told the league to blow it out their asses and paid whatever fine they gave him.

[Whitesox572]

Gospel, OldRoman

[Whitesox572]

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

The only devil's-advocate case I can make is not that it'd be mistaken for a Cubs jersey, but that people may have seen the road jersey with a fairly plain cursive "Chicago" and a white sock on it and thought because THE Sox logo wasn't on it, it was one of those unlicensed ripoffs you buy in the last aisle of the Jewel (or is it the first aisle of the Osco? Seasonal candy and grey-market Chicago sports merchandise compose kind of the DMZ of the Jewel-Osco). Problems with this argument:

 

1) This jersey has been around for circa 25 years. If you've ever been at all cognizant of Chicago baseball, you recognize it as a White Sox jersey. Furthermore, they won a World Series, as in "recorded the final out of it," wearing that exact jersey.

2) While everyone, thank goodness, is not us, I think most folks can spot the uncanny valley of generic, team-implying sports apparel, and an otherwise MLB-quality Majestic jersey passes the eye test in a way that lesser merchandise does not. I mean, surely the batter logo, the tags at the bottom, and lack of poor craftsmanship show that it's what it is and not what it merely suggests.

3) Even if, for the sake of argument, there were a scourge of grey-market Sox apparel, I mean, lots of that stuff still has an unlicensed primary logo on it anyway! You're not foiling bootleggers with this.

 

So like you said, yeah, it's just looking busy. There is something to be said for a primary logo with the team name occurring on a road jersey (I think the traditional Cubs logo would make a better sleeve patch on the road than the bear looking for garbage to eat), but in this case, it doesn't improve anything and, unlike the case of the Cubs, essentially doubles the cap logo. 

 

Ass for the Cardinals, it's not their primary on the road, because their primary just has one bird on a bat, not two. You know, they could stand to drop the one-bird version and not miss a beat.

 

My biggest beef is that you could previously, as a fan, have worn the White Sox cap (primary logo) with the road jersey ("Chicago" script and diamond sock on the sleeve), and you had, like, the PERFECT combination....all three elements of the team identity were represented in matching colors, just a perfect brand.  Now, the SOX on the sleeve is redundant if you're wearing the cap.  It looks especially ridiculous on the field.  Why have a duplicate logo on the cap and sleeve?  

[Ray Lankford]

13 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Yeah, North American sports do tend to have more focus on history and long-running franchises.  The more corporate the uniforms become, the more the uniforms just change from year-to-year.  I don't really know how often they change in futbol, but if we get to the point of the WNBA's sponsor-to-team ratio, then historic franchises will be changing uniforms every few years when sponsor deals change...maybe something like that would keep the leagues from going all the way.

Uh-huh. Real Madrid and Manchester United are both 114-years-old. Barcelona is 117-years-old and only started putting ads on their jerseys five years ago.

 

It's not about baseball being more old-fashioned or classier or whatver, especially since the UA logo could very well be the first chink in the armor. And even then, we just had a World Series that was blue-on-blue for the majority of the games and that was two 100+ year old teams. Maybe soccer's just ahead of the curve.

[Thomas]

10 hours ago, Stu-BallsOmnicorp said:

Soccer teams tend to change their uniforms every year. Some teams used to change every other year, but now it seems to be every year. 

Yes, and then they have the so called 3rd kit, which seems to be designed by a group of people in LSD / other drug rehab.

 

 

 

 

Then add shorts, socks and shoes in the same colors!

For a classic sports logo/uniform lover, soccer is the ultimate nightmare.

[Ray Lankford]

Just to throw it out there, here are the 2016 Champions League and World Series champs:

If anything, second and third jerseys give soccer teams an outlet for their wilder side. It's like a kid whose parents let them express themselves and a kid whose parents don't. The former's going to do so in a healthy way and the latter's going to pop eventually. 

[OnWis97]

I don't follow soccer...maybe it's common knowledge around here, but I legitimately have no idea who that team is.  I'm not sure how much that matters (not that I don't but that interested casual fans may not).  In fairness, I suppose most Europeans don't know who the Cubs are in that photo; and the "Chicago" jersey would have some value.

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with those two photos.  If you're suggesting that the soccer one's better because the Cubs wore those goofy blue uniforms, I'm not buying it.  The Cubs (and Cavs) won their title in the wrong uniform, but I'll take bending that tradition over an airline logo plastered on the chest (also breaking tradition on this side of the pond)

 

 

12 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

Uh-huh. Real Madrid and Manchester United are both 114-years-old. Barcelona is 117-years-old and only started putting ads on their jerseys five years ago.

 

It's not about baseball being more old-fashioned or classier or whatver, especially since the UA logo could very well be the first chink in the armor. And even then, we just had a World Series that was blue-on-blue for the majority of the games and that was two 100+ year old teams. Maybe soccer's just ahead of the curve.

As I understand it, and I don't follow, so I am really just picking up on what I read here, they don't use the "franchise" model in Europe that MLB uses and the NBA and NFL used to use. If a team relocates it ceases to exist.  I think we're a bit more history-focused here...

 

It doesn't matter.  Ultimately, you win (I say that inferring that you prefer corporate focused uniforms; my apologies if you don't).  20 years from now the Yankees corporate mark will take up more of the uniform than the team mark.  

 

But for me it's not even close.  Representing the team over a corporation is the most important thing.

[hawk36]

For me it's best to just leave each sport to themselves. Fun to compare and contrast but in the end each has their own unique looks.

 

Coming late to soccer (really started following hard core in 2009) I was very confused by the clash kits with odd colors. But I've grown to love them and actually am bummed that the Sounders got rid of their neon yellow and neon cyan clash kits in favor of a more normal blue one. Kind of fun to have a totally different color for a few times a year.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

Barcelona is 117-years-old and only started putting ads on their jerseys five years ago.

 

It's actually 10 years ago.  Their first kit with ads was in 2006-07.

 

 

Even then, they tried to ease into the practice by using the space on the front not for an ad paid for by a company, but for the UNICEF logo, for which they themselves had paid.  This was as a sop to fans who were complaining about the team (which famously has the slogan "More than a Club") selling itself out.  After this controversy died down, Barcelona eventually brought in a regular shirt sponsor which had paid for the placement.

Still, Barcelona were the last major team in world football to give in to uniform ads.  Today one can occasionally see teams without shirt sponsors; I think that AS Roma don't have one right now.  But those are always cases in which no deal could be struck, not cases in which the team has decided to go without an advertiser logo.

The coming of jersey ads fills me with dread.  I will say again something that I have said before:  think of Tom Seaver.  You see in your mind the word "Mets".  Think of George Brett.  You see in your mind the word "Royals".  Now think of David Beckham.  What word do you see in your mind?  "Sharp".  "Herbalife".  Think of Thierry Henry.  You see "O2".  Companies pay for jersey sponsorships because what they are buying is not really space on a jersey, but space in our memories.  It is a kind of pollution.

The sponsor's logo often dwarfs the team's logo on a shirt.  Recently John Oliver did a segment on mutil-level marketing, and he showed an Herbalife recruitment video from India.  Almost everyone in that video was wearing a Galaxy shirt, a shirt on which the Herbalife logo features prominently while the Galaxy's own logo is relatively undetectable.

I can only hope that some major teams decide that their own branding is more important than selling space to other companies.  From the standpoint of branding, the only logo that belongs on a team's shirt is its own.

[OnWis97]

21 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

For me it's best to just leave each sport to themselves. Fun to compare and contrast but in the end each has their own unique looks.

 

Coming late to soccer (really started following hard core in 2009) I was very confused by the clash kits with odd colors. But I've grown to love them and actually am bummed that the Sounders got rid of their neon yellow and neon cyan clash kits in favor of a more normal blue one. Kind of fun to have a totally different color for a few times a year.

 

 

I kinda like the concept of "clash kits" as a unique soccer thing as well.  Hell, MLB can just use their primaries as "clash kits" to avoid navy-vs-navy situations but they don't always do it.

 

Kinda like buttons in MLB, clash kits are unique to soccer.  You could make the same argument about sponsorship, but for me, that's just bad whether it's baseball, hockey, North America, Europe, major league, or minor league.  Uniforms should represent the team and not be deluded by any sponsors.  I am even against what we've already had...Manufacturers on NFL sleeves (dating to the early 1990s?) or on the bottom of NHL jerseys (early 1980s, or even earlier), or even the barley-noticeable MLB sleeve stitching (late 1980s?).  There is no "tasteful" way to do this to a uniform.  There are more/less egregious ways.  The NBA is about to become more tasteless than the others, then barring any unsuspected shenanigans from the NHL or NFL, MLB will be the second-worst offender.  I realize some people are OK with WNBA-style (though most are not) and others are OK with manufacturer logos...I'm probably too "hard-line" even for this board.  That's just how I feel.  It's all tastless...but to this point, it's been tasteless on a small-ish scale.

[OnWis97]

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It's actually 10 years ago.  Their first kit with ads was in 2006-07.

 

 

 

Even then, they tried to ease into the practice by using the space on the front not for an ad paid for by a company, but for the UNICEF logo, for which they themselves had paid.  This was as a sop to fans who were complaining about the team (which famously has the slogan "More than a Club") selling itself out.  After this controversy died down, Barcelona eventually brought in a regular shirt sponsor which had paid for the placement.

Still, Barcelona were the last major team in world football to give in to uniform ads.  Today one can occasionally see teams without shirt sponsors; I think that AS Roma don't have one right now.  But those are always cases in which no deal could be struck, not cases in which the team has decided to go without an advertiser logo.

The coming of jersey ads fills me with dread.  I will say again something that I have said before:  think of Tom Seaver.  You see in your mind the word "Mets".  Think of George Brett.  You see in your mind the word "Royals".  Now think of David Beckham.  What word do you see in your mind?  "Sharp".  "Herbalife".  Think of Thierry Henry.  You see "O2".  Companies pay for jersey sponsorships because what they are buying is not really space on a jersey, but space in our memories.  It is a kind of pollution.

The sponsor's logo often dwarfs the team's logo on a shirt.  Recently John Oliver did a segment on mutil-level marketing, and he showed an Herbalife recruitment video from India.  Almost everyone in that video was wearing a Galaxy shirt, a shirt on which the Herbalife logo features prominently while the Galaxy's own logo is relatively undetectable.

I can only hope that some major teams decide that their own branding is more important than selling space to other companies.  From the standpoint of branding, the only logo that belongs on a team's shirt is its own.

As I skimmed down I thought you were going to say "think of George Brett with "Volkswagon" across his chest."  And that's what bugs me.  There's a great photo of Kirby Puckett, fist in the air, rounding the bases after hitting his Game 6 homer in 1991, the "Twins" wordmark front and center.  And sometimes I imagine that word mark saying "Coca-Cola" and it makes me kinda groan.  There will be iconic photos like that one day.  And I suppose most of us will just accept it.

[AstroCree]

4 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

As I skimmed down I thought you were going to say "think of George Brett with "Volkswagon" across his chest."  And that's what bugs me.  There's a great photo of Kirby Puckett, fist in the air, rounding the bases after hitting his Game 6 homer in 1991, the "Twins" wordmark front and center.  And sometimes I imagine that word mark saying "Coca-Cola" and it makes me kinda groan.  There will be iconic photos like that one day.  And I suppose most of us will just accept it.

HELL NO!

[AnPheitseog]

41 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I kinda like the concept of "clash kits" as a unique soccer thing as well.  Hell, MLB can just use their primaries as "clash kits" to avoid navy-vs-navy situations but they don't always do it.

 

Kinda like buttons in MLB, clash kits are unique to soccer.  You could make the same argument about sponsorship, but for me, that's just bad whether it's baseball, hockey, North America, Europe, major league, or minor league.  Uniforms should represent the team and not be deluded by any sponsors.  I am even against what we've already had...Manufacturers on NFL sleeves (dating to the early 1990s?) or on the bottom of NHL jerseys (early 1980s, or even earlier), or even the barley-noticeable MLB sleeve stitching (late 1980s?).  There is no "tasteful" way to do this to a uniform.  There are more/less egregious ways.  The NBA is about to become more tasteless than the others, then barring any unsuspected shenanigans from the NHL or NFL, MLB will be the second-worst offender.  I realize some people are OK with WNBA-style (though most are not) and others are OK with manufacturer logos...I'm probably too "hard-line" even for this board.  That's just how I feel.  It's all tastless...but to this point, it's been tasteless on a small-ish scale.

Not true. Even more so, at least on a club level, soccer mostly a home and away jersey, rather than clash. 

 

Rugby has clash jerseys as well. Only time you'll see the Springboks in anything besides their green and gold is against Ireland in South Africa, because of the greens clash and the home team changing.