MLS kit sponsorships

[Gothamite]

Personally, I'd rather keep the team names on the front the way it is right now in MLS, but if switching the sponsor logo to the front contributes to the financial stability of the league, then I'm all for it.

That's the least of MLS' problems, though.

The league won't be stable until they radically overhaul their structure, and make the games actually meaningful. The playoff system is a disgrace.

A team in New York couldn't hurt, either.

[-kj]

There's already a team in the New York Metropolitan Area.

The Jets couldn't even get a stadium done in the city, what makes anyone think MLS could?

[-kj]

I would love for the teams to have the same huge angled corporate logos that rugby teams have on the field. They are printed in a way so that as the camera spans the field the logo appears clear and legible. I think those are brilliant!!!

Please, no, no, no.

And besides, it's not allowed under the laws of the game.

[gordie_delini]

Please, can we not continue this discussion? It's been hashed out over and over and over again. Some of us traditional football fans like having the sponsors on the front a lá european football. Other traditional American sports fans like having the team name on the front. Can we just agree to disagree? MLS will do what they will, and we unfortunately have no influence whatsoever. My suggestion is for those who feel strongly enough one way or the other is to petition the president of MLS and Phil Anschutz, the league's other main investors.

[2mr41h]

I am not a fan of sponsorship logos on the uniforms at all. It makes the league and the teams look like they're prostituting themselves for the sake of a dollar. The MLS is already on the right track to turn a profit with their soccer-specific stadiums and the new TV deal, where they actually are getting paid for the first time.

Prostituting themselves? Sponsors help promote the sport and provide cash flow for clubs. Having greater visibility for the sponsor's logo would make MLS a more viable sport for corporations to be involved with.

[Gothamite]

There's already a team in the New York Metropolitan Area.

The Jets couldn't even get a stadium done in the city, what makes anyone think MLS could?

Yeah, but I want one in the city. New Jersey transport is, in a word, terrible. I live a few short miles and one river from Giants Stadium and I spend more time getting home from the Red Bulls game than I do watching the game itself. It's absurd.

There's no comparison with the Jets stadium. The only reason that went down was because the Garden feared losing its concert revenue and poured millions into a disingenous ad campaign. I don't need to go against the Dolans again. Let them build their new MSG on the west side (so long as they start paying taxes on their income, which would be a nice change of pace).

Queens would be fine. Lots of land available. Just so long as I can take the subway.

[Bouj]

Money talks in the European player market. And any team that would compromise its ability to pay for good players to keep its shirt ad-free is on a path to eternal mediocrity.

Barcelona is, of course, the exception that proves the rule

You mean "not yet".

Barca Deny Beijing Sponsorship, Look To Other Options

Hope they don't though...

[MJWalker45]

Barca will be wearing Unicef logo on their jerseys at different times this season. They haven't confirmed what dates though. It will appear on their shirts over the next five years.

[Wilt]

I know that some American fans don't like the ads which are normal in Europe. But of course the structure of proffesional leagues is far more different in Europe where no one calls them franchise because they are independent eneterprises and they can earn and spend as much as they want. Some sports are even more liberal. In volleyball and basketball even the national teams have sponsor ads on their shirts but not in all competitions (e.g. Olympics have always been ad-free).

[totc]

I think they'll keep MLS sponsorships on the back, sleeves, and shorts because we would rather have it that way. I like our aesthetics better than the Rest Of The World. Especially Mexico.

I don't want our soccer players looking like NASCAR drivers!

[Gothamite]

I think they'll keep MLS sponsorships on the back, sleeves, and shorts because we would rather have it that way. I like our aesthetics better than the Rest Of The World. Especially Mexico.

Who's this "we," white man? Speak for yourself. You might prefer it, but "we"?

I don't want our soccer players looking like NASCAR drivers!

Right. Because "sponsorships on the back, sleeves, and shorts" in no way looks like NASCAR drivers.

[Wilt]

I think the solution from the Champions League, where only one ad on the chest is allowed, is a wise and esthetic one. Tho other solution is to leave the shirt plain like e.g. Barcelona or DC United. IMHO, putting the name of the team/city doesn't fit to soccer jerseys.

[Fred T. Jane]

Right. Because "sponsorships on the back, sleeves, and shorts" in no way looks like NASCAR drivers.

[MJWalker45]

I think the solution from the Champions League, where only one ad on the chest is allowed, is a wise and esthetic one. Tho other solution is to leave the shirt plain like e.g. Barcelona or DC United. IMHO, putting the name of the team/city doesn't fit to soccer jerseys.

DC United wear Sierra Mist on the sleeve and back of the jersey

[Gothamite]

I think what Wilt (that you, Peter? ) is saying is that he'd rather see one sponsor, on the chest, than the NASCAR approach some MLS teams have already taken, selling billboard space on the sleeves and back of the shirt.

[totc]

I think they'll keep MLS sponsorships on the back, sleeves, and shorts because we would rather have it that way. I like our aesthetics better than the Rest Of The World. Especially Mexico.

Who's this "we," white man? Speak for yourself. You might prefer it, but "we"?

Oh, yeah -- only the United States could have come up with vertically-striped socks, the Rainbow Guts, and the World Football League's positional pants.

[Wilt]

I think what Wilt (that you, Peter? ) is saying is that he'd rather see one sponsor, on the chest, than the NASCAR approach some MLS teams have already taken, selling billboard space on the sleeves and back of the shirt.

Sorry, I'm not Peter. Thanks for formulating my point, I have problems with my inferior sense of English. I'm against adverts on the backs, sleever shorts, socks and wherever else (the so called NASCAR or F1 style). But even though the teams from my town have few of them, I still support them .

[SabreGuy]

I know that some American fans don't like the ads which are normal in Europe. But of course the structure of proffesional leagues is far more different in Europe where no one calls them franchise because they are independent eneterprises and they can earn and spend as much as they want. Some sports are even more liberal. In volleyball and basketball even the national teams have sponsor ads on their shirts but not in all competitions (e.g. Olympics have always been ad-free).

I've been trying to find the correct wording for what I'm trying to say here, but have been having trouble. I think the crux of the issue is what Wilt says here, about the structure of the leagues.

I think that's where it smacks as greed more than necessity for me. If the teams were independant units, and needed that ad money to survive, then I'd have pretty much no problem with it. But since the leagues are pretty much corporations here, not associations of independant clubs, they presumably would control ALL of the sponsorship for ALL of the teams, and that, for some reason, seems objectionable to me. I can't really put my finger on why, and maybe it's true that the league needs that revenue money to survive just as much as individual European teams do... but I don't like the idea of the league FORCING teams to put ads on their jersies.