MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

The point about aesthetics is a strong one; the marring effect of advertisement is obvious (and shots of Fenway Park with outfield ads only underscore this point).

 

It's also strange that people here, who tend to pay attention to good branding, can somehow overlook the branding disaster that uniform ads represent.  You don't see ads for other products on the labels of Campbell's Soup or Coca-Cola or Reynolds Wrap; you see only the logo of the product in question. The point is that the only logo that belongs on a team's uniform is the team's own.

 

But the most important harm associated with uniform ads is the distortion that they cause.  Think about Tom Seaver.  What do you see in your mental image? You see the word "Mets". Think about Cal Ripken. You see the word "Orioles".  Think of Ozzie Smith. You cannot help but see the word "Cardinals".

 

Now turn to world footballers. When you call to mind an image of David Beckham, what you see in that mental image is the ad for Sharp (or, later, Herbalife). Thoughts of Thierry Henry will necessarily bring up the image of the O2 logo. Frank Lampard? Samsung. The advertisers are not only buying placement on a uniform, they are buying placement in our memories. It is a form of pollution.

 

Having said this, we can concede that, when it comes to struggling small leagues, uniform advertising is to an extent understandable, in the same way that it is for kids' little league baseball teams. It's hard to complain too much about ads on uniforms in the various leagues of arena/indoor football, considering that some of those teams might not exist at all without the ads.

 

But for the NBA and Major League Baseball and the NHL and even MLS, in which losing money is literally impossible due to the constant increase of franchise values, uniform ads are nothing other than pure vile excess, worthy of unqualified condemnation.

 

 

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

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

I feel like this sort of hits on all of this very well, and it’s actually a really good comparison, but it maybe isn’t making the point you’re trying to make. 
 

Root canals, while extremely unpleasant in the short term, actually are good for the long term health of your teeth. If you look at it like that, ads on jerseys could sort of be seen in the same manner. Unpleasant as all :censored:, but an attempt to help guarantee the “long term viability” of the team and league.
 

Now, I would argue that it’s more to line the pockets of a bunch of greedy owners, but your point about the root canal is still pretty on the nose. 

[gosioux76]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The point about aesthetics is a strong one; the marring effect of advertisement is obvious (and shots of Fenway Park with outfield ads only underscore this point).

 

It's also strange that people here, who tend to pay attention to good branding, can somehow overlook the branding disaster that uniform ads represent.  You don't see ads for other products on the labels of Campbell's Soup or Coca-Cola or Reynolds Wrap; you see only the logo of the product in question. The point is that the only logo that belongs on a team's uniform is the team's own.

 

But the most important harm associated with uniform ads is the distortion that they cause.  Think about Tom Seaver.  What do you see in your mental image? You see the word "Mets". Think about Cal Ripken. You see the word "Orioles".  Think of Ozzie Smith. You cannot help but see the word "Cardinals".

 

Now turn to world footballers. When you call to mind an image of David Beckham, what you see in that mental image is the ad for Sharp (or, later, Herbalife). Thoughts of Thierry Henry will necessarily bring up the image of the O2 logo. Frank Lampard? Samsung. The advertisers are not only buying placement on a uniform, they are buying placement in our memories. It is a form of pollution.

 

Having said this, we can concede that, when it comes to struggling small leagues, uniform advertising is to an extent understandable, in the same way that it is for kids' little league baseball teams. It's hard to complain too much about ads on uniforms in the various leagues of arena/indoor football, considering that some of those teams might not exist at all without the ads.

 

But for the NBA and Major League Baseball and the NHL and even MLS, in which losing money is literally impossible due to the constant increase of franchise values, uniform ads are nothing other than pure vile excess, worthy of unqualified condemnation.

 

 

You’re 100% right. But I really think you guys are arguing with a ghost. I don’t think I’ve read any post in this thread that suggests ads on uniforms are a good thing or should be accepted. 
 

Speaking for myself, I’ve attempted to point out that some of assumptions underlying that disdain are presumptuous. But again, it seems all you're looking for is discourse that supports a full-throated condemnation of something, which seems to me like the wrong way to conduct a discussion board.

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, IceCap said:

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.

 

Again, I haven't seen any arguments on here suggesting you or anybody else should accept it. At the same time, trying to explain these ads in the context of business decision-making, rather than blindly attributing it to corporate greed, also doesn't make someone in favor of it. 

 

In other words, it's possible to want to understand how we got to this point and ALSO not like that these ads exist. But it seems as if anything that doesn't translate loosely into "this sucks, it's terrible, greedy owners, cash grab, etc. etc" is, to you, an attempt to justify the necessity of uniform ads.

 

If it helps, I'll boil it down to this: Ads suck, they're ugly, and I wish uniforms were the way they used to be. But there isn't a for-profit business in America today that isn't making every attempt they can to maintain and grow their profit margins. I'm not inside a MLB board room to know the exact motivations behind things like jersey advertisements, but I'm not so cynical to just assume this is all about lining someone's pockets. I don't like it, but I also don't live in a fantasy world, nor do I own a time machine. 

[TrueYankee26]

I don't think it was posted yet but this looks to be the 2023 Spring Training logo 

 

[bowld]

Any other new uniforms coming this season or is just the Twins set?

[YELDARBfield]

12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

But for the NBA and Major League Baseball and the NHL and even MLS, in which losing money is literally impossible due to the constant increase of franchise values, uniform ads are nothing other than pure vile excess, worthy of unqualified condemnation.

Your post is generally true, but this part is tenuous. Losing money is difficult at the major league level of pro sports but not impossible. And relying on "increasing franchise values" as the reason why teams shouldn't sell a type of advertisement ignores the reason why a franchise's value increases. The ability for a team to sell a sponsorship worth millions of dollars is one of the things that makes the value rise.

 

Plus, in order for a franchise's value to matter, the owner looking to realize that value would need to sell the franchise. "Value" is not liquid; cash from sponsors, broadcast partners, ticket & merch revenue, et cetera is.

 

That said, I do agree that uniform ads are excessive, especially for the Yankees of the sports world who are historically and continually valuable and not as likely to sell large portions of stake in the team. But the horse is out of the barn. Professional sports as a whole is excessive.

[WSU151]

2 hours ago, bowld said:

Any other new uniforms coming this season or is just the Twins set?

 

Probably a few new alternates plus more City Connects. I think the Twins were the only team to completely update their set. 

[TrueYankee26]

I think this is the last year of City Connects releases so my Yankees should be getting one released this year. I really hope it is good. Something hip hop, NYPD/FDNY or Yankee Stadium themed would be fine.

[spartacat_12]

19 hours 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…

 

Well that's a bit of a different situation, as ads had been front & center on football/soccer kits long before MLS even existed. Ironically enough, having team wordmarks on the chest instead of ads made the teams look amateur compared to Premier League clubs. For sports like baseball & hockey, the perception is the exact opposite. Uniforms plastered with ads in those sports feels completely bush league.

 

5 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

If it helps, I'll boil it down to this: Ads suck, they're ugly, and I wish uniforms were the way they used to be. But there isn't a for-profit business in America today that isn't making every attempt they can to maintain and grow their profit margins. I'm not inside a MLB board room to know the exact motivations behind things like jersey advertisements, but I'm not so cynical to just assume this is all about lining someone's pockets. I don't like it, but I also don't live in a fantasy world, nor do I own a time machine. 

 

Chasing short-term profits can sometimes cause harm to a business in the long run. Sure, an ad patch might make you a quick couple million, but you're slowly diluting the value of your brand by doing so.

 

HBO could make a lot of money running commercials during their programs, but they don't because their brand is premium, prestige television, and they already make a ton of money off their subscriptions. MLB is the most prestigious baseball league in the world, and already has several lucrative revenue streams. They shouldn't have to resort to cheap tactics. 

[IceCap]

9 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

but I also don't live in a fantasy world

Neither do I. I live in the real world where uniform ads weren't necessary for decades upon decades upon decades. 

 

9 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

but I'm not so cynical to just assume this is all about lining someone's pockets

See the above. 

Also... why else are they doing it? It's certainly not for the aesthetics. 

 

9 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

If it helps

Try again.
 

The thing is... this is a forum dedicated to sports aesthetics. Like... that's the main thing. So I find myself wondering why there's this attitude of "well actually..." from a segment of the posting population is surfacing. 

[gosioux76]

37 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Neither do I. I live in the real world where uniform ads weren't necessary for decades upon decades upon decades. 

 

See the above. 

Also... why else are they doing it? It's certainly not for the aesthetics. 

 

Try again.
 

The thing is... this is a forum dedicated to sports aesthetics. Like... that's the main thing. So I find myself wondering why there's this attitude of "well actually..." from a segment of the posting population. 

 

If I were overly cynical I'd say it's due to either the need to seem smarter or the need to be contrarian, but I wouldn't want to be so cynical, would I? 

OK, so let’s go back to your original point. Who is suggesting that uniform ads are good or that you should be OK with them? 

I guess this really leaves me wondering why you’d seem so opposed to having more interesting discourse than just “ads are bad,” 

 

I’d think a message board meant to discuss these topics wouldn’t want to become an echo chamber. 

[IceCap]

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I’d think a message board meant to discuss these topics wouldn’t want to become an echo chamber. 

Projection isn't an attractive quality. 

 

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

OK, so let’s go back to your original point.

You're not getting my original point.

 

17 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I guess this really leaves me wondering why you’d seem so opposed to having more interesting discourse than just “ads are bad,” 

I mean you said... 

"Ads suck, they're ugly, and I wish uniforms were the way they used to be..."

Seem smile an "ads are bad" take to me! 

 

But I mentioned my original point. And how you don't get it. Maybe that's on me for not wording it properly, so I'll make it as clear as I can. 

 

This is a message board dedicated to sports uniform aesthetics. In a setting like this the position that "ads are bad," "ads are ugly," or "ads ruin team identities" shouldn't be surprising. 

 

That, in short, is my point. So the desire, the dare I say need, for some people to "well actually" and talk down to everyone else about the """necessity""" of ads is what is strange to me.

 

This isn't about echo chambers, my guy. It's about the inherent need some people on the internet have to seeing a large group of people react in an expected, logical manner and taking up the contrarian position. 

 

And in terms of echo chambers... if you were so keen to avoid them you could have addressed my other points but you didn't. And that's no problem. You don't have to address them. 

But coming here to say "well I guess you just don't want to have a discussion" when avoiding points of discussion is... a choice. 

 

Anyhow...

As a fan of sports logo and uniform aesthetics ads are ugly and intrusive. 

 

As a fan interested in the history of sport, these leagues, and these teams ads seem like an affront to the identities they wear. 

 

As a man with a pretty good memory, the ability to read and comprehend the world around me, and functional eyes and ears... I fail to see the practical needs of teams and leagues to add ads when 1) broadcast money is bigger than it ever was before 2) jersey sales (and prices!) are the highest they've ever been 3) tickets and in-game refreshments are as expensive as they've ever been 4) commercials are as prevalent as they've ever been, and 5) the gap between the haves and have-nots is bigger than it has ever been in the last sixty years. 

 

From my perspective as a lowly peasant leagues, teams, and the billionaires who own them have more money coming in now then they did twenty years ago. Which makes the """necessity""" of ads dubious at best. 

 

 

 

 

[gosioux76]

27 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Projection isn't an attractive quality. 

 

You're not getting my original point.

 

I mean you said... 

"Ads suck, they're ugly, and I wish uniforms were the way they used to be..."

Seem smile an "ads are bad" take to me! 

 

But I mentioned my original point. And how you don't get it. Maybe that's on me for not wording it properly, so I'll make it as clear as I can. 

 

This is a message board dedicated to sports uniform aesthetics. In a setting like this the position that "ads are bad," "ads are ugly," or "ads ruin team identities" shouldn't be surprising. 

 

That, in short, is my point. So the desire, the dare I say need, for some people to "well actually" and talk down to everyone else about the """necessity""" of ads is what is strange to me.

 

This isn't about echo chambers, my guy. It's about the inherent need some people on the internet have to seeing a large group of people react in an expected, logical manner and taking up the contrarian position. 

 

And in terms of echo chambers... if you were so keen to avoid them you could have addressed my other points but you didn't. And that's no problem. You don't have to address them. 

But coming here to say "well I guess you just don't want to have a discussion" when avoiding points of discussion is... a choice. 

 

Anyhow...

As a fan of sports logo and uniform aesthetics ads are ugly and intrusive. 

 

As a fan interested in the history of sport, these leagues, and these teams ads seem like an affront to the identities they wear. 

 

As a man with a pretty good memory, the ability to read and comprehend the world around me, and functional eyes and ears... I fail to see the practical needs of teams and leagues to add ads when 1) broadcast money is bigger than it ever was before 2) jersey sales (and prices!) are the highest they've ever been 3) tickets and in-game refreshments are as expensive as they've ever been 4) commercials are as prevalent as they've ever been, and 5) the gap between the haves and have-nots is bigger than it has ever been in the last sixty years. 

 

From my perspective as a lowly peasant leagues, teams, and the billionaires who own them have more money coming in now then they did twenty years ago. Which makes the """necessity""" of ads dubious at best. 

 

 

 

 

So we’ve gotten to the “my guy” stage, I see. 
 

You made a good argument about rising prices, which is a good point. But what about those rising expenses, and the continually exploding player salaries, and a need to hedge against declining attendance and TV ratings?
 

That gap between the haves and have nots in baseball is even more reason for a smaller club to want additional streams of revenue. 
 

And I’ll say this for a third time: you don’t have to like it, but these are for-profit companies that need to grow or maintain profit margins in an environment of rapidly increasing expenses. 
 

These organizations may have multi-billion-dollar valuations, but in terms of operating revenue they are mid-sized businesses at best.  You might think of them as the playthings of billionaires but they’re still businesses, no different than an accounting firm or manufacturer. The one difference is that most of us put them on a pedestal to be something bigger than they are. 
 

And since it bears repeating — again — I don’t care for it either.  But what you or I think about it doesn’t really matter.

[infrared41]

23 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

how long until it would seem weird for the Habs and hypothetically the Yankees to NOT have an advertisement somewhere. 

 

Before I answer your question, let me make this as clear as I possibly can. I am not, in any way, endorsing putting ads on jerseys. I don't like ads on jerseys and I'll never like ads on jerseys.  There are enough alternate revenue streams available to teams to more than make up for any ad money lost by keeping the jerseys ad-free. OK, with that out of the way...

 

We discussed a similar topic on the most recent episode of Basically a Sports Show (Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever fine podcasting is sold) and this is how I saw it. I've been a NASCAR fan for most of my life. Without sponsors, there is no NASCAR, F1, IndyCar, NHRA, or any other type of racing. Seeing all the ads on the cars isn't in issue to me because I'm used to it. It's all I've ever known. Unfortunately, there will come a day where sports fans will not only be used to seeing the New York Yankees look baseball's version of a NASCAR Cup Car, they'll expect it because anything else would look weird. Case in point...

 

Which one of these cars do you think looks weird to a NASCAR fan?

 

 

To answer your question, it will take about one generation.

[Ridleylash]

I think the ultimate difference NASCAR/auto racing in general has to other sports is twofold;

1. Cars just have much more room for ads than the human body, so having ads isn't as distracting as it might be on a baseball uniform (and ads just show up better on cars with large surfaces than on human bodies).
2. Since you don't generally see drivers that much during a race, the car becomes their uniform in a sense. Like, when people talk about Dale Earnhardt, they always mention that iconic black #3 Chevy without fail. Same with Petty and the light blue #43 Superbird.

I think that's the reason other sports are looking into things like digital ads on the playing surface instead of just pumping as many ads onto uniforms as possible; there's just not enough real estate, at least not without compromising the design itself.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

10 hours ago, YELDARBfield said:

Losing money is difficult at the major league level of pro sports but not impossible. And relying on "increasing franchise values" as the reason why teams shouldn't sell a type of advertisement ignores the reason why a franchise's value increases. The ability for a team to sell a sponsorship worth millions of dollars is one of the things that makes the value rise.

 

The inexorable increase in franchise values began long before uniform ads. Jeff Smulyan of Emmis bought the Mariners in the late 1980s.  He lost a ton of money for several years, and then made it all back — in vast multiples — when he sold the team to Nintendo, which itself eventually sold the team for more than five times what it had paid for it.  Smulyan liked his experience so much that he wanted to go around again, staging an ultimately unsuccessful bid to buy the Nationals.

 

Broadcast rights fees alone are enough to power the rise in franchise valuations for the forseeable future.  And, for as long as that is the case, losing money in these top leagues is actually impossible.

 

 

10 hours ago, YELDARBfield said:

Plus, in order for a franchise's value to matter, the owner looking to realize that value would need to sell the franchise.

 

That is no obstacle.  There are many, many super-wealthy people who would be willing to buy any of the teams in the big five leagues.  This applies even to MLS, the smallest of the top leagues, the one that has arrived most recently to that stature, and a league in which the teams are not even independent entities.  People sometimes claim that MLS is some kind of Ponzi scheme; but the truth is that the league turns away more suitors than it accepts.

 

 

2 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

That gap between the haves and have nots in baseball is even more reason for a smaller club to want additional streams of revenue. 

 

The gap between the spending power of teams in big cities versus teams in small cities can be addressed by revenue sharing.  This would equalise the spending power of all teams, without marring the uniforms (and our memories) with ads, and without robbing from the players by distorting the market by means of a salary cap or a luxury tax or the right of first refusal or free agent compensation or whatever other contemptable scheme the owners conspire to cook up.

[infrared41]

4 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

I think the ultimate difference NASCAR/auto racing in general has to other sports is twofold;

1. Cars just have much more room for ads than the human body, so having ads isn't as distracting as it might be on a baseball uniform (and ads just show up better on cars with large surfaces than on human bodies).
2. Since you don't generally see drivers that much during a race, the car becomes their uniform in a sense. Like, when people talk about Dale Earnhardt, they always mention that iconic black #3 Chevy without fail. Same with Petty and the light blue #43 Superbird.

I think that's the reason other sports are looking into things like digital ads on the playing surface instead of just pumping as many ads onto uniforms as possible; there's just not enough real estate, at least not without compromising the design itself.

 

It's not about available "real estate." It's about using every inch of "real estate." What I was saying is there will come a day when ads all over uniforms will seem normal. If you don't like the NASCAR comparison, we can use European hockey instead.

 

 

That said, ad creep happened in NASCAR too.

 

The #43 car in 1971...

 

 

The #43 car circa 2021...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WSU151]

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The gap between the spending power of teams in big cities versus teams in small cities can be addressed by revenue sharing.  This would equalise the spending power of all teams, without marring the uniforms (and our memories) with ads, and without robbing from the players by distorting the market by means of a salary cap or a luxury tax or the right of first refusal or free agent compensation or whatever other contemptable scheme the owners conspire to cook up.

 

The luxury tax in baseball is revenue sharing and has incentivized rich teams like the Red Sox to have ads, as the extra revenue subsidizes the cost of the tax in revenues.  “Oh we have to share more revenue??…well we should look for more revenue to offset it” is literally every solution to taxes in the universe. 

 

And we can complain about the owners greed but the players also agreed to these ads in the 2022 CBA because they’re just as greedy as well. They want that extra revenue in the game. 

[Brian E]

18 hours ago, TrueYankee26 said:

I think this is the last year of City Connects releases so my Yankees should be getting one released this year. I really hope it is good. Something hip hop, NYPD/FDNY or Yankee Stadium themed would be fine.

 

"so invert the pinstripes and put 'THE BOOGIE DOWN' on the front? DONE!" - a nike exec somewhere, probably