Ducksforcup
Registered User
The problem here is that one little ad will lead to another little ad...
and well you get the point.
I am completley against this notion.
and well you get the point.
I am completley against this notion.
the major difference between
and
is that the Euro teams are entirely reliant on that ad revenue to survive. If the Red Wings put a little GM patch on their jersey to get some extra cash, it would be on top of their existing profits... HC Davos doesn't have pre-exisiting profits.
NHL jerseys already have advertising on it, look at the Reebok logo and all that BS about Reebok Edge jerseys you hear everytime people talk about jerseys.
NHL jerseys already have advertising on it, look at the Reebok logo and all that BS about Reebok Edge jerseys you hear everytime people talk about jerseys.
No, I think it's just a difference in sporting culture. Even the rich English soccer teams have big corporate logos plastered across the chest (much bigger than the team name or logo). And those teams certainly don't need the money, they have plenty of other revenue streams.
I don't know what's wrong in simply acknowledging that North America and Europe are different. Europeans find some things acceptable (such as corporate sponsor ads on jerseys) that North Americans tend to find tacky and undesirable. The converse is also true. North Americans don't mind frequent TV commercial breaks interspersed throughout the game in their sports, but many Europeans would find this undesirable.
everyone kind of accepted it and moved on. The same thing would happen here.
Your position may be "meh, you'll get over it."
But I swear, I'm not going to buy any jersey or other gear with a corporate sponsor advertisement on it. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.
I'll still be a hockey fan and watch and go to games. But my spending on merchandise will certainly go down.
European soccer teams are not typically profit generating entities... many of the larger clubs carry massive amounts of debt, so major sponsorship deals are very much necessary. Plus, the ads have replaced dead space... traditionally, the fronts of soccer kits were just totally blank:
And notice that those soccer teams still aren't as bad as the commonly thrown about examples of what advertising would mean. Modo Hockey has something like 7 ads on their jerseys whereas Chelsea has one. The reason is money.... Modo needs it badly whereas Chelsea doesn't. That's why it would never go beyond a small ad patch in North America.
It's not that Europeans are just more accepting of ads on jerseys, because when the concept first crept into sports leagues over there the reaction was the same as the reaction here. It's that many clubs in many leagues in many sports throughout Europe needed the money and everyone kind of accepted it and moved on. The same thing would happen here.
none of the 4 major leagues allow it now therefore none of them ever will. great logic
They do it that way in Europe, and therefore we're bound to do it that way here as well. Also great logic.
I agree it looks tacky.
Funny how America's reputation is greed and capitalism, yet they have jersey sponsorship in European leagues but none in the highest level of the four major sports.
In baseball, the Mets actually had to re-design their inaugural season patch for Citi Field because MLB wouldn't approve the first design, as it was too much like a Citi Bank ad.
Well I hope that I get asked that question in trivia.Quick: name the largest manufacturers' logo on an on-ice jersey in NHL history.
Give up? CCM in the mid-1980s had a hem patch that was about 5" wide and 2" tall.
You really don't see the difference between the manufacturer of the jersey putting their mark on the item that they actually made, and ad placed on the jersey by a completely unrelated corporate sponsor?
There's another factor to be considered here: jersey sales.
Merchandise sales are a big revenue stream for the NHL. Sure, they would make some money selling ad space on jerseys, but it wouldn't be worth it of their jersey sales to fans took a hit.
Speaking for myself, I've spent probably over $1000 on various authentic and replica NHL jerseys, but I wouldn't buy another one the moment they turned into corporate billboards. I buy and wear hockey jerseys because I want to support my team, not to support some bank or airline or telecom.
I wouldn't give up on hockey, I'd just stop buying the new ad-plastered merchandise. I'm simply not going to buy a hockey jersey with a corporate ad on it (not counting the unobtrusive manufacturer's mark, of course).
If the NHL is going to do something stupid like this out of pure greed, the appropriate way for fans to respond and voice their displeasure is to vote with their wallets, and ensure that such a move will backfire financially.
Well I hope that I get asked that question in trivia.
I see a difference between Reebok making the jersey and putting their name on it, and Tampax putting their logo on the front of the jersey right beside my beloved team's logo. I find it annoying the way they have taken some sweet looking jerseys, made them look like crap with pin stripes and then tell us they are better.
I think you mean they do it everywhere else in the world.
I still don't see a problem with this
Ads are not this irresistible force of nature that invades everything.