MLS' justification for sponsor logos on soccer jerseys

[gueman]

Well the Miami Hooters did. Same with New Jersey Red Dogs.

I should have clarified... Has an established Euro team changed their colors to match their sponsor?

[Moser316]

Well the Miami Hooters did. Same with New Jersey Red Dogs.

I should have clarified... Has an established Euro team changed their colors to match their sponsor?

From historicalkits.co.uk:

"In February 1995 local business tycoon Dave Whelan bought (Wigan Athletic). Whelan had made a fortune establishing the JJB Sports Wear retail chain and set about invigorating the club. The colours were changed to those of the JJB chain and a string of signings made."

It's a subtle change, but note the difference in colors between the 1993-94 kit and the 1994-95 kit. It gets even more pronounced in the 1995-98 kit, when green was added to the club's color scheme. The green was used until the 2004-05 season, when the club won promotion to the Premier League.

[Gothamite]

Happens, but rarely. It is by far the exception to the rule.

It's also worth noting that Wigan was a very low-level team at the time. I don't know if that fits the criteria for "established" above.

[Moser316]

Happens, but rarely. It is by far the exception to the rule.

It's also worth noting that Wigan was a very low-level team at the time. I don't know if that fits the criteria for "established" above.

Low-level, but they were still a league club at the time (in fact, Whelan pretty much saved Wigan Athletic from relegation from The Football League)...

[gordie_delini]

the only other solid example i could think comes from MLS, where the MetroStars (formerly the NY/NJ Metrostars) were bought and renamed Red Bull New York, adopting the colors and sponsorship of Red Bull (which sponsors many sporting outfits around the world, including RBNY's sister club, Red Bull Salzburg).

There are other clubs that do this, that are named for the sponsor or company. I already mentioned PSV, but another could example would be Vauxhall FC. They're similar to PSV, in that the British auto manufacturer Vauxhall created a team for employees, which then turned semi-professional and have been promoted to the Nationwide Conference North (not quite part of the Football League yet).

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

I am now a big fan of English football, having come to it over the past four years. So, I tend to cringe when I hear the largely stupid criticisms that many Americans have of soccer. ("Not enough scoring"; "draws stink", etc.)

But, on the issue of uniform sponsors, I will stand side-by-side with people I'd normally consider goofballs when they say that an ad on a uniform looks terrible. Not only is it ugly, but it is unprofessional and bush-league. Little league teams get sponsored uniforms, not pro teams.

Furthermore, from a purely branding standpoint, ads do not make the jersey more recognisable because, as DGivens has pointed out, teams will change sponsors every so often. ("Fly Emirates" was on the Chelsea shirts a few years ago; now it is on the Arsenal shirts.)

Nevertheless, there have indeed been a few long-time sponsor/team matchups that became somewhat fixed in the public memory. But, does this really promote awareness of the team?

Consider this: when you think of Willie Mays, the word "Giants" immediately comes into your mind, simply because that word is present on the front of Mays's uniform in almost every picture of him you have ever seen.

Likewise, you cannot possibly think of Stan Musial without also having the word "Cardinals" make its way into your psyche, because that word appears on Stan The Man's chest in practically every photo.

Now, think of David Beckham. What word seeps into your thoughts? "Sharp". Think of Thierry Henry. What "word" are you also seeing in your mind's eye? "O2".

So, any argument asserting that the placement of ads on a team's jersey enhances awareness of the team as a brand is completely ridiculous. In fact, if the biggest thing on the jersey (and the only thing that can be read from far away) is the ad, then, to the extent that any "brand awareness" is being cultivated here, it is the sponsor's name -- not the team's name -- that gets driven into people's subconscious.

This is why, even though I am a soccer fan living in the U.S., I can no longer lament the ignorance of soccer in this country. Because, if the Premiership or even MLS ever became sufficiently mainstream here, then so would the acceptance of ads in these absurd places. And, once this psychological hurdle is overcome, then the market forces would inevitably result in our seeing ads on the fronts of uniforms in many other sports.

This is not unrealistic -- Mark Cuban is actively pursuing this in the NBA, and has gone on record as saying that ads would already be on NBA unis if he had his way. I believe that Cuban is also trying to buy the Cubs, so would presumably sell space also on that uni as soon as he could.

Just as many others here presumably do, I take unis seriously, as a treasured part of our visual culture. So, for me, marring a uniform with an ad is nothing short of tragic. Not only does this represent a crime against aesthetics, but, as we can see from the Beckham and Henry examples mentioned above, it is also an insidious assault on our memories -- and, hence, on our history.

i completely agree with this. An example would be in one of the Jersey threads, someone posted a picture of this beckham(sp?) guy playing for one those euro clubs, what was it Manchester U don't remember. anyway, instead of having an easily identifiable team name where i can instantly corrolate the player with the team, it had a company logo, i think benq/siemens? now as someone as soccer illiterate as me, when i see a picture like that i don't think Madrid or Manchester, i think team siemens only because i have been conditioned when watching hockey, football, baseball or what have you, i'm used to seeing team logo/wordmark in which it identifies the team. In soccer, i can't do that because the first thing i see is a company logo and not the team name. unless, i see the team name or logo, it just screws things up for me. Now with nascar, there is no Detroit Lions or Dallas Mavericks essentially no team name to corrolate the driver with. Basically the company logo, Budwieser or Home Depot establishes the identity. But with a pro team, the logo/word mark/colors establishes the identity. Making the company logo the main feature and minimalizing the team logo, defaults the company logo as the identity of the team. If you want to do Miami FC with a Target logo as the main sponser, then just rename the team Miami Target FC with red and white and a target logo to establish the identity of the team.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Think of Thierry Henry. What "word" are you also seeing in your mind's eye? "O2".

"Gillette"... and then, "I never think about yesterday." Then "Tiger Woods" and "Roger Federer." Then an uncomfortable moment between those last two names involving inappropriate touching of a shaved beard.

Then I think about one of the worst commercials I have ever seen. Bad green screen action there, walking in front of a calendar with "Today" on every day. And a script to match. (Of course, when the option is some pseudo-futuristic "The Island" knockoff with a woman declaring "It's finally ready! Five blades!" ... well...)

Pardon the ignorance of this non-soccer fan, but when I read your post it was the second time I've ever seen Henry's name... honest... other than the 500 times I've seen that commercial. Every time I wonder, "Who is this guy and why is he considered the dominant force in his sport like Tiger and Federer?" But the best Gillette can list is some 2003 honor. I assume he's better than just that, but that commercial doesn't make a strong case for all of its "champions."

All that said... I think top tier pro leagues should never allow ads on unis. I want to remember Stan Musial and Willie Mays just as you described -- as a player on a team, not as a pitchman.

MLS and Arena football and probably even the NHL don't meet that standard, so I think they can get away with it. If it legitmately helps the survival of the league, fine. But I'm used to MLB (and Wrigley Field in particular) shoving all of these new "necessary to compete" ads and color screens all over and I'm not seeing any more championships.

[Gothamite]

Happens, but rarely. It is by far the exception to the rule.

It's also worth noting that Wigan was a very low-level team at the time. I don't know if that fits the criteria for "established" above.

Low-level, but they were still a league club at the time (in fact, Whelan pretty much saved Wigan Athletic from relegation from The Football League)...

True, but the lowest level of League football (and, as you note, lucky to have even that).

[Gothamite]

Happens, but rarely. It is by far the exception to the rule.

It's also worth noting that Wigan was a very low-level team at the time. I don't know if that fits the criteria for "established" above.

Low-level, but they were still a league club at the time (in fact, Whelan pretty much saved Wigan Athletic from relegation from The Football League)...

True, but the lowest level of League football (and, as you note, lucky to have even that).

[Sodboy13]

I remember hearing that, when the Buffalo Sabres changed to red, black, and silver, it was to match the colors of HSBC. Don't know if there's any truth to that, though.

[zjac7]

The idea of a Columbus shirt being instantly recognizable anywhere is pretty laughable to me, sponsor or no sponsor...

I wish they'd just own up and say that they need the money very badly, but that will never, ever happen. Most soccer fans don't mind the sponsorship, they are pretty used to it, so I don't consider this to be a major issue. Most fans are aware of the badge as the team's main identifier (which is why many players hold it aloft, point to it or even kiss it after scoring), as soccer teams traditionally have never had a wordmark across the chest.

As an FYI to CubsFanBudMan: Thierry Henry is an icon of the game...

[Mingjai]

As an FYI to CubsFanBudMan: Thierry Henry is an icon of the game...

I guess they could have picked Ronaldinho, but he doesn't exactly have a TV face. No offense to one of the top 5 current soccer players in the world, but since most Americans don't know who Ronaldinho is, seeing his mug in an ad 500 times or so would be enough to make most people NOT want to buy the razor.

[CubsFanBudMan]

As an FYI to CubsFanBudMan: Thierry Henry is an icon of the game...

I guess they could have picked Ronaldinho, but he doesn't exactly have a TV face. No offense to one of the top 5 current soccer players in the world, but since most Americans don't know who Ronaldinho is, seeing his mug in an ad 500 times or so would be enough to make most people NOT want to buy the razor.

zjac, I guess I'm saying that as a sports fan with limited exposure to soccer, they could have made a better case for him. I just looked it up on YouTube, and the other 2 get a "2006 Wimbledon champion" and "2006 Player of the Year" and the best they can put for Henry is "2003 Footballer of the Year." Seems wrong.

"Icon of the game" is much better, so thanks for clarifying. I knew there was something better to be said. I guess if nothing else from that ad, I've heard of him now. (And FWIW, I've heard of Ronaldinho.) OK, no more soccer talk from me. "Yesterday is history. Just a nice memory."

[gordie_delini]

I can't believe they didn't use Becks for those Gillette commercials - he is soccer to non-soccer-following-Americans.

I suppose it didn't help that he had been riding the pine pony at Real Madrid and had been dropped from the Three Lions when those commercials were probably made...