Manufacturers logos on uniforms

[hockey week]

i hate what Reebok does with the NFL jerseys. the Seahawks is only one example. their logo completely crowds the team's logo. the reason Reebok has the logo on the sleeves is because it will be seen most often there and itss kind of a tradition thing. no one has done anything different. i guess they would prefer to be known for shi**y, impractical uniforms rather than innovative and clever just so everyone is always aware of their logo.

they should put it on the back of the jerseys though, above the NOB. just like the NHL. put it on the front even, below the NFL shield. theres just no excuse for the poor placement of it currently

It's the nature of the beast, and increased media coverage. Back in the 50s and 60s, there wasn't as much live exposure in sports as there is now. Closeups, multiple angles, replays, all give the manufacturers more free time to promote their products in action. And it's not enough to just slap a logo on the product; the look and design has to be such to ingrain it into the viewer's memory.

Who wouldn't want the chance to promote their own business or brand in that way?

number one rule in marketing is: dont let your advertising show. meaning, you dont want to look like your entire purpose is to sell a product. when advertising becomes transparent (or would it be visible?), it turns people off. probably the biggest reason people dont want to see any corporate logos on uniforms, even with designers

Actually, the NFL specifies the size and location of the manufacturer's logo. Even if the on-field garments were adidas, Nike or Under Armour branded, the logos would all be in the same location and the same size. That is not the licensee's doing, but rather, the league's. Same with the Seahawk logo. The team has to approve the design of the uniform, so the size of that logo is really up to them. Again, not the licensee's fault.

Yes, but that's only based on what league you're talking about. The NFL has the power to continue doing that. The MLB, or at least the Yankees (who I'm told don't have the majestic logo on their jerseys, much to their credit), still have that power. The NBA apparently has that power. Does the NHL? I have my doubts. For instance, if this catalog, which featured the new Reebok wordmark in lieu of the logo, was pushed upon the league, would they be able to stop it? I doubt it.

Smaller leagues have no power to stop it, they either get the jerseys with the logos, or they don't get jerseys. It starts there, gets accepted there, and then trickles up to the big leagues, where by that time, people were wondering why those logos weren't there to begin with. If any team, Beer League through Juniors and even past that, wants Reebok jerseys in NHL styles, they get the wordmark below the collar, even though the NHL teams don't wear that. They don't have a choice. That's one of my biggest problems.

My biggest problem is where it hits a new point of ridiculousness, when the logo is there but it wasn't made by them. I'm not sure, with how many mergers and buyouts there have been, how big of a difference there is, but the NCAA D1 hockey teams I announce for have Itech manufacturers tags inside the uniforms, but BAUER on the front below the tag, because the contract is with Bauer. The manufacturer's tag isn't the one on the front! To me, that's a new level of absurd. You can make the argument for Itech to be on there, because they put it together, but any argument for bauer is tenuous at best

[andrewharrington]

I'd rather not have any of it. You are right that the NHL is the worst current offender, as some teams have a break in the color scheme to make room for the logo below the back of the neck.

As far as I am concerned, the Reebok relationship with the NFL is minimally different than the sponsor relationships in European soccer. Everything the coaches and players wear on the sidelines must have the logo...the difference being that the entire league does this with one sponsor, as opposed to individual teams with different sponsors.

I still have an authentic MLB jersey with Rawlings on the sleeve and back then I never thought much about it, but the Rawlings print was less obvious than the stuff nowadays.

Like I've said, I'd rather see none of it. The fact that these companies produce the uniform does not mean that it's not an advertisement just like the AHL patches. I think the NHL and NFL have taken it a step up vs. the NBA and MLB.

I used to think of this as the "gateway drug" to full-fledged advertising, but it's been going on a while, so maybe not.

And I know I am in the minority, even here. Most people here, I suspect, will be OK with the manufacturer logo and I think most feel OK with adding other advertisements, if done "tastefully" (whereas I don't think it would be tasteful under any circumstances). And outside of these boards, very few people care that much about the uniforms. And as you can see, domination by the advertiser has not hurt the popularity of NASCAR or soccer around the world.

I think the NHL will make the leap. It's a fringe sport in the US. Though I have no sense of the potential reaction in Canada, so I could be wrong.

EDIT: After posting the above, I read Lucas' column and he does a poor job. The reason is that curmudgeons like him and I don't really have a leg to stand on-it can make them more money, so what else is there? He was all emotion and did not make many arguments to convince anyone of anything else, though his point about corporate logos watering down the team identity is worthy. (I did also like his statement that when the Cowboys switched from Nike to Reebok, the essentially sold the advertising rights to someone else).

Therefore, I fully admit that my stance is based on being old-school, and not liking to see corporate logos everywhere. It bothers me minimally now, but I hope it does not go NASCAR/WNBA/MLS

Nevermind. I get it now.