MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

Look, as altruistic as I know all of us are and would hope MLB clubs would be about this whole ads on uniforms thing, the reality is this: these teams got to somehow find ways to bankroll these increasingly exorbitant player contracts some kind of way, and if the additional ad dollars make sense for the clubs, they'll make the business decision so many of us despise--because it is in fact a business, after all. 

 

(Not saying we have to like it—because we don't—but as the saying goes, "it is what it is" at this point in the game.)

 

This is a fair take. It's possible to dislike the ads and wish they weren't there while also acknowledging that there could be real economic reasons for which moves like this have become necessary.

 

But at the same time, the finances of professional sports aren't transparent enough for us to really understand whether there's a need for this revenue or if it's just another opportunistic cash grab. 

 

From an armchair view, it would seem plausible that the continued ballooning of player contracts would suggest this revenue would become a competitive necessity for some clubs, particularly those that find themselves unable to pursue big-name free agents because they can't afford to outbid deep-pocketed clubs. But even then, I'm not sure the revenue from an ad patch would be enough to put, say, the Pirates in the running for Aaron Judge.  If anything, it might help to retain current profit margins, which isn't nothing.  

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

But at the same time, the finances of professional sports aren't transparent enough for us to really understand whether there's a need for this revenue or if it's just another opportunistic cash grab. 

 

Actually they are and it's the latter

[gosioux76]

4 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Actually they are and it's the latter

Ok, I'm willing to be convinced. Explain it. 

[dont care]

On 11/30/2022 at 11:14 PM, aawagner011 said:

If the ad is swapped on the sleeve depending on if it’s a left handed or right handed batter, that inconsistency will drive me absolutely insane. 
 

And then both sleeves for switch hitters, or they got to change jerseys every time they decide to change what side of the plate to stand on. 

[dont care]

10 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Ok, I'm willing to be convinced. Explain it. 

The fact salary caps continue to go up, meaning the leagues are making more revenues because the cap is based on it. Baseball doesn’t have a cap but they do have a tax that is also continuing to go up. No professional sports team in America is “losing money” they just might not be making as much as they would like so they are continuing to destroy their brands for the all mighty dollar.

[gosioux76]

8 hours ago, dont care said:

The fact salary caps continue to go up, meaning the leagues are making more revenues because the cap is based on it. Baseball doesn’t have a cap but they do have a tax that is also continuing to go up. No professional sports team in America is “losing money” they just might not be making as much as they would like so they are continuing to destroy their brands for the all mighty dollar.

That's all true, but it doesn't account for the variances from one team to another. Teams may be willing to spend more, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that money is coming from increased revenue.  A team owned by a multi-millionaire is still in competition with a team owned by a billionaire who might have no issue continuing to dump more of their personal wealth into a team to make it competitive.

 

On the point of losing money, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all teams are raking in the dough. Forbes's annual ranking of franchise valuations includes data on each team's operating income, and one-third of baseball's teams in 2021 posted an operating loss — meaning the cost of business operations surpassed the revenue they were bringing in. And while these franchises are high-profile institutions with valuations in the billions, as operating entities they're nothing more than mid-sized regional businesses generating annual revenue in the roughly $320 million range.  Those Forbes revenue and income figures exclude things like real estate investments or ownership stakes in regional sports networks, but even then, those categories are evidence that mid-sized businesses need to diversify their revenue streams to maintain growth. 

 

But you don't have to be losing money to justify additional revenue streams. Running a business, of any type or size, is about the pursuit of growth, which means maintaining or growing profit margins. And like most American businesses, the cost of doing business is increasing. Some might call this greed — and in many cases, it very well may be — but it's also the nature of capitalism.

 

Don't take this as some endorsement for advertising patches. As a uniform purist like most of you, I find them distasteful and I wish they didn't exist. But the knee-jerk assumption that they're some symbol of corporate greed seems a bit hyperbolic to me. 

 

[namefornamesake]

On 12/1/2022 at 1:45 AM, selgy said:

I am not a fan of this at all. 

At all...

But anyone who is acting like this is a new problem doesn't know baseballs history 

Green Monster 

How many teams do you think are gonna use this as an excuse?

[TheBigFiz21]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:53 AM, dont care said:

And then both sleeves for switch hitters, or they got to change jerseys every time they decide to change what side of the plate to stand on. 

I'm of the argument that they won't change sides of the patch based on the player's preference of how they hit/pitch. From a TV or photography perspective, there's enough angles to capture and focus on a player during a ballgame that you will see the patch regardless. Fans attending the game and sitting in their seats are obviously a different story, but not a big deal, I'd imagine.

 

Personally, I wanna know how long would it take before, god forbid, all 30 teams would have a patch. I think of the NBA, who I think got every team on board by the midway point of the 2018-19 season if I recall (OKC and/or Dallas were the last ones to get a patch).

[spartacat_12]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:48 AM, simtek34 said:

I wouldn't hold my breath out for that, as supposedly, the Yankees were the team that was pushing for the Nike swoosh to be on the front of MLB jerseys instead of on the sleeve like Majestic/Russel/Rawlings/etc...

 

I'd hope they would sell the naming rights to the stadium before they ever decided to tarnish the pinstripes with an ad.

[WSU151]

These were unveiled in August, and I missed them and didn't see them posted earlier, so just in case anyone else missed it:

 

The Rockies' 30th Anniversary logo

 

 

This looks to be the Marlins' 30th anniversary (though probably without the trophies):

 

[fortunat1]

That Marlins one really confuses me. It meets the minimum requirement for anniversary logos, but that's all you can say about it - no team imagery outside of the small logo, no reference to their orange and black era, no reference to significant team history (assuming the trophies aren't actually part of the logo). They couldn't even bother to include a secondary color. The background is just a plain blue diamond.

 

A small nitpick for me is the 1993 on the logo's left side. Despite all of the plain choices for the entire logo, they made the effort to put "1993" in the original shade of teal. It seems that all of their creativity was poured into one of the most minimal aspects of the logo. In the era of unneeded anniversary logos, you'd at least think that teams would put effort into them. At the end of the day, the logo does its job, but it also could've been done much better.

[LEWJ]

Did they mean 30 million years? I’m no geologist, but…

 

I’ll see myself out.

 

The Marlins one seems like a memorial for someone who wore #30 and won two ‘ships. Or something..?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by LEWJ
indecisiveness

[IceCap]

People attempting to justify ads here will always confuse me. 

[gosioux76]

20 hours ago, IceCap said:

People attempting to justify ads here will always confuse me. 

What's confusing about it? 

[IceCap]

7 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

What's confusing about it? 

This is a community dedicated to sports aesthetics. And I just find the notion of both being into the design and aesthetics of sport and being ok with advertising creep very strange. The act of injecting ads into uniforms is itself an act that lessens the aesthetics of what we're all here to supposedly enjoy.

[gosioux76]

4 hours ago, IceCap said:

This is a community dedicated to sports aesthetics. And I just find the notion of both being into the design and aesthetics of sport and being ok with advertising creep very strange. The act of injecting ads into uniforms is itself an act that lessens the aesthetics of what we're all here to supposedly enjoy.

I haven’t seen any comments on this board suggesting anybody is OK with it. There’s a difference between rational explanations for why something exists and actually endorsing it.

[IceCap]

31 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I haven’t seen any comments on this board suggesting anybody is OK with it. There’s a difference between rational explanations for why something exists and actually endorsing it.

Rational explanations are fine, but when it becomes "you don't understand why it's necessary" it's like... come the on. We're here to talk about uniform design. Setting aside the fact that the explanations aren't entirely convincing, "you should just accept it" isn't convincing on a site dedicated to aesthetics.

[chcarlson23]

4 hours ago, IceCap said:

This is a community dedicated to sports aesthetics. And I just find the notion of both being into the design and aesthetics of sport and being ok with advertising creep very strange. The act of injecting ads into uniforms is itself an act that lessens the aesthetics of what we're all here to supposedly enjoy.

 

38 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I haven’t seen any comments on this board suggesting anybody is OK with it. There’s a difference between rational explanations for why something exists and actually endorsing it.

I do agree with IceCap that the addition of advertisements really does take away from sports aesthetics, but what is interesting is that I have seen a few users on the boards here comment that it was weird to see an MLS club without a front advertisement. Because it no longer felt like a soccer jersey. Which is honestly scary…

 

If this isn’t a slippery slope argument I’m making, how long until it would seem weird for the Habs and hypothetically the Yankees to NOT have an advertisement somewhere. 

[tBBP]

42 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

 

I do agree with IceCap that the addition of advertisements really does take away from sports aesthetics, but what is interesting is that I have seen a few users on the boards here comment that it was weird to see an MLS club without a front advertisement. Because it no longer felt like a soccer jersey. Which is honestly scary…

 

If this isn’t a slippery slope argument I’m making, how long until it would seem weird for the Habs and hypothetically the Yankees to NOT have an advertisement somewhere. 

 

I give it five years max. Maybe seven. 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

A root canal is necessary too. doesn't mean it's good.