FIFA-style sponsorships in NBA jerseys?

[Kevin W.]

Yes, the revenue is shared among the MLS teams because of the single-entity structure.

[Gfonk04]

The primary problem with on-jersey advertising is that it weakens the team's brand. In the Big Four each team is its own brand, its own revenue generating visual and corporate identity. The New York Yankees, for example (or the Lakers, or Dolphins, or whoever), are a brand identity unto themselves, instantly recognizable worldwide, with an appeal all their own. Look at that Aussie basketball league photo from a few posts back. Those jerseys (the red ones especially) are so cluttered that the team itself has no real visual identity. Imagine the Yankees adding "SONY" or something to their pinstripes. It's a huge degradation of their established, multimillion dollar brand. Lights Out's suggestion of minimalist advertising is nice in a Utopian vision of advertising on jerseys, but if you were Kia, would you pay millions for a tiny patch on a jersey? They'll be huge and legible if they're incorporated. And they'll be in the company's own colors, not matched to the team. (Imagine T-Mobile's pink on the SF Giants' black and orange...)

Teams will have to oppose this by arguing that the cost of diminishing their established brand would not be offset by the money gained through sponsorship. And that comes down to team ownership and some cost-benefit analysis. And angry, loud fans.

[Gregmond]

In Australia, AFL teams have jersey sponsorship, but somewhat less overwhelming that soccer advertising. Teams are allowed one sponsorship logo on the front of the jumper (opposite the AFL logo), one logo on the back (bigger, below the players number) and one (I think) on the shorts. All three logos can be different, or the same.

Take a look at uniforms for Richmond, Collingwood and Brisbane:

It's just what we've gotten used to, and doesn't seem to take away from the core jumper identity. Of course, most AFL clubs don't modify their uniform each season, which is very different to soccer (and the NBA to a lesser extent).

[DaytonBlue]

It's a slippery slope. When I first moved to Memphis, the FedExForum script on the court was just lettering, not the FedEx logo with the arrow. Same thing at Staples Center, the L didn't always have the cure that made it look like a staple. Then that was changed, although the FedExForum logo is still black, presumably because the NBA doesn't allow multi-colored arena name logos (yet) and all of FedEx's logos have multiple colors. So I bet it starts with the warm-ups, then a small patch on the jersey, and eventually they'll look like soccer jerseys do today.

[MJWalker45]

The primary problem with on-jersey advertising is that it weakens the team's brand. In the Big Four each team is its own brand, its own revenue generating visual and corporate identity. The New York Yankees, for example (or the Lakers, or Dolphins, or whoever), are a brand identity unto themselves, instantly recognizable worldwide, with an appeal all their own. Look at that Aussie basketball league photo from a few posts back. Those jerseys (the red ones especially) are so cluttered that the team itself has no real visual identity. Imagine the Yankees adding "SONY" or something to their pinstripes. It's a huge degradation of their established, multimillion dollar brand. Lights Out's suggestion of minimalist advertising is nice in a Utopian vision of advertising on jerseys, but if you were Kia, would you pay millions for a tiny patch on a jersey? They'll be huge and legible if they're incorporated. And they'll be in the company's own colors, not matched to the team. (Imagine T-Mobile's pink on the SF Giants' black and orange...)

Teams will have to oppose this by arguing that the cost of diminishing their established brand would not be offset by the money gained through sponsorship. And that comes down to team ownership and some cost-benefit analysis. And angry, loud fans.

I would argue the opposite. Even though the team logo for Liverpool was smaller,the fact they were with Carlsberg for so long enhanced i their brand. Just like O2 got more attention because they were on Arsenals shirts.

[Kevin W.]

The primary problem with on-jersey advertising is that it weakens the team's brand. In the Big Four each team is its own brand, its own revenue generating visual and corporate identity. The New York Yankees, for example (or the Lakers, or Dolphins, or whoever), are a brand identity unto themselves, instantly recognizable worldwide, with an appeal all their own. Look at that Aussie basketball league photo from a few posts back. Those jerseys (the red ones especially) are so cluttered that the team itself has no real visual identity. Imagine the Yankees adding "SONY" or something to their pinstripes. It's a huge degradation of their established, multimillion dollar brand. Lights Out's suggestion of minimalist advertising is nice in a Utopian vision of advertising on jerseys, but if you were Kia, would you pay millions for a tiny patch on a jersey? They'll be huge and legible if they're incorporated. And they'll be in the company's own colors, not matched to the team. (Imagine T-Mobile's pink on the SF Giants' black and orange...)

Teams will have to oppose this by arguing that the cost of diminishing their established brand would not be offset by the money gained through sponsorship. And that comes down to team ownership and some cost-benefit analysis. And angry, loud fans.

I disagree. Teams with strongly-established brands won't have their brands weakened by advertising. Liverpool and Manchester United may change their designs every year and have sponsorship on their uniforms, but their uniforms are still recognizable at first glance. Teams that won't change their uniforms, like the Yankees, will not suffer if the ads are small. Those uniforms are so ingrained in peoples' minds that advertising, especially if it's not really intrusive, won't harm the brand.

[sportsfan0518]

The worse (possible) thing that has happened to the NBA since that time in 2007 or 2008 I think when they used some fake ball during the games. This is a typical David Stern move. Thank god we have Adam Silver coming in in 2014...

[dfwabel]

It's a slippery slope. When I first moved to Memphis, the FedExForum script on the court was just lettering, not the FedEx logo with the arrow. Same thing at Staples Center, the L didn't always have the cure that made it look like a staple. Then that was changed, although the FedExForum logo is still black, presumably because the NBA doesn't allow multi-colored arena name logos (yet) and all of FedEx's logos have multiple colors. So I bet it starts with the warm-ups, then a small patch on the jersey, and eventually they'll look like soccer jerseys do today.

See the following which disregard that claim:

ORACLE Arena

Energy Solutions Arena

American Airlines Center

Even before their colors changed the Kings' floor had the same ARCO logo (with the red spark) you would see at your local station

[Lights Out]

I disagree. Teams with strongly-established brands won't have their brands weakened by advertising. Liverpool and Manchester United may change their designs every year and have sponsorship on their uniforms, but their uniforms are still recognizable at first glance. Teams that won't change their uniforms, like the Yankees, will not suffer if the ads are small. Those uniforms are so ingrained in peoples' minds that advertising, especially if it's not really intrusive, won't harm the brand.

So, let me get this straight - huge, ugly ads on the jerseys wouldn't harm the Yankees' brand, but according to other people on this board, navy alternate jerseys and/or choosing ONE interlocking NY logo would harm it irrevocably?

[Kevin W.]

I wouldn't want huge ads on a baseball uniform, though. If they're going to put ads on the Big Four uniforms, I don't think doing it like soccer would work. It should be small and inobtrusive.

However, I also think that a navy alternate jersey for the Yankees would look good.

[cmm]

It's a slippery slope. When I first moved to Memphis, the FedExForum script on the court was just lettering, not the FedEx logo with the arrow. Same thing at Staples Center, the L didn't always have the cure that made it look like a staple. Then that was changed, although the FedExForum logo is still black, presumably because the NBA doesn't allow multi-colored arena name logos (yet) and all of FedEx's logos have multiple colors. So I bet it starts with the warm-ups, then a small patch on the jersey, and eventually they'll look like soccer jerseys do today.

See the following which disregard that claim:

ORACLE Arena

Energy Solutions Arena

American Airlines Center

Even before their colors changed the Kings' floor had the same ARCO logo (with the red spark) you would see at your local station

Kind of off topic here, but does anyone know why Chase is allowed to advertise on the MSG floor? Is that the only NBA arena with a floor ad for a company without the building's naming rights? Or is it now officially Madison Square Garden presented by Chase?

[kw11333]

I know it did not really hurt soccer jersey sales, but this would hurt NBA jersey sales. People in low income neighbor-hoods will not use what little money they have to be a bill board for Mcdonalds.

Really?

These can be found in a 'hood near you, and are a bit more expensive than a jersey. LOL .

That being said I REALLY don't want this to happen, but if it does, life will go on.

Although I think your point was ridiculously made, it made me laugh. My point was, will they get an NBA jersey with a huge Best Buy logo on it, or a baseball or football jersey?

[CubsFanBudMan]

It's a slippery slope. When I first moved to Memphis, the FedExForum script on the court was just lettering, not the FedEx logo with the arrow. Same thing at Staples Center, the L didn't always have the cure that made it look like a staple. Then that was changed, although the FedExForum logo is still black, presumably because the NBA doesn't allow multi-colored arena name logos (yet) and all of FedEx's logos have multiple colors. So I bet it starts with the warm-ups, then a small patch on the jersey, and eventually they'll look like soccer jerseys do today.

See the following which disregard that claim:

ORACLE Arena

Energy Solutions Arena

American Airlines Center

Even before their colors changed the Kings' floor had the same ARCO logo (with the red spark) you would see at your local station

The United Center logo has changed over the years but was always black -- until this year. Now it's blue and I find it jarring. Not sure I'll get used to how out of place it looks among the red and black. (I'm still not a fan of the orange ball at center court and that's been there since 1994.)

To add to that, the United Center got a shiny, new illuminated blue sign in the rafters to go with the red Madhouse signs. I thought they were preparing for a transition in 2014 or whenever the naming rights ran out, but maybe not, post-merger.

[Saintsfan]

Yes, the revenue is shared among the MLS teams because of the single-entity structure.

But does TV advertising revenue go to the MLS or to the TV companies?

[Saintsfan]

In Australia, AFL teams have jersey sponsorship, but somewhat less overwhelming that soccer advertising. Teams are allowed one sponsorship logo on the front of the jumper (opposite the AFL logo), one logo on the back (bigger, below the players number) and one (I think) on the shorts. All three logos can be different, or the same.

Take a look at uniforms for Richmond, Collingwood and Brisbane:

It's just what we've gotten used to, and doesn't seem to take away from the core jumper identity. Of course, most AFL clubs don't modify their uniform each season, which is very different to soccer (and the NBA to a lesser extent).

The AFL model is what the NBA should follow if they must allow sponsors logos.

[guest23]

Yes, the revenue is shared among the MLS teams because of the single-entity structure.

But does TV advertising revenue go to the MLS or to the TV companies?

Networks sign a contract with a team/league for a predetermined $ amount which is to be paid over a set number of years. It is then up to the network to then sell the commercial air time to sponsors. If the network can generate enough revenue from selling ad time and it exceeds the amount paid out in the contract the deal is profitable for the network. In some instances like the nfl and its broadcast partners some of those networks may be willing to take a loss on a contract in order to cross promote other network properties to a large captive audience.

some key points with tv deals and revenue sharing: the 3 big leagues excluding the nfl have a hybrid model, the national broadcast deal is negotiated by the league and revenue is shared equally but each franchise is free to broadcast local non national games and negotiate their own contracts in which they keep 100% of the revenue. The nfl is the only league that has 100% of its games tied to a national TV contract which then splits 100% of all tv revenue equally amongst the 32 franchises.

lastly you have newer agreements being structured that are hybrids and are constantly evolving, leagues and pro teams are starting their own branded networks like YES, NESN, MLB that can either be wholly owned by the sports team or league or a joint venture between a sports entity and a traditional network like the upcoming Dodgers branded network with time warner cable. You're also seeing colleges and conferences going the same route all negotiating their own deals with varying structures. It's becoming harder and harder to track to say the least.

Back to the original point though I'm pretty sure that MLS has been divesting itself from the single entity concept for quite a while now. I'm pretty sure that they are operating under the national/local model where each franchise gets to keep its local tv money.

[Saintsfan]

Yes, the revenue is shared among the MLS teams because of the single-entity structure.

But does TV advertising revenue go to the MLS or to the TV companies?

Networks sign a contract with a team/league for a predetermined $ amount which is to be paid over a set number of years. It is then up to the network to then sell the commercial air time to sponsors. If the network can generate enough revenue from selling ad time and it exceeds the amount paid out in the contract the deal is profitable for the network. In some instances like the nfl and its broadcast partners some of those networks may be willing to take a loss on a contract in order to cross promote other network properties to a large captive audience.

So basically, there is no link between shirt sponsorship and TV contracts. The networks get the advertising revenue, the clubs get shirt sponsorship revenue.

As a sport, soccer has decided to compromise on the look of its uniforms, in order to maximise sponsorship revenues. Its nothing to do with TV advertising revenues that networks bring in.

[Gothamite]

Its nothing to do with TV advertising revenues that networks bring in.

Sure it has.

The amount that television networks are willing to pay is hampered, perhaps severely, by the realities of the sport. With only one commercial break per ninety minutes, their ability to sell ad time is greatly diminished.

That translates into a reduced tv contract, and consequently a restriction on revenue for the teams. A restriction that a basketball or hockey league in a similar start-up position wouldn't have.

[guest23]

Its nothing to do with TV advertising revenues that networks bring in.

Sure it has.

The amount that television networks are willing to pay is hampered, perhaps severely, by the realities of the sport. With only one commercial break per ninety minutes, their ability to sell ad time is greatly diminished.

That translates into a reduced tv contract, and consequently a restriction on revenue for the teams. A restriction that a basketball or hockey league in a similar start-up position wouldn't have.

what's also unique to american football is the fact that the nfl and major college conferences have actually extended play stoppages via tv timeouts in order for their broadcast partners to air more commercials...unfortunately it makes football broadcasts much more valuable to broadcast but I personally hate it...if you haven't noticed wait until the new nfl season starts and watch how many times in the 1st half the network cuts to commercial after a simple possession change.

[Gothamite]

And that's what makes the NFL perfect for television. Better than any other sport; it's the only sport that's better to watch at home than at the game.