Uni Ads coming to MLB within 3 years

[KevFu]

What's interesting to me is that advertising on jerseys was a thing in European sports for over 40 years before anyone thought to implement it in American sports. Why is that? People act like it's the most obvious thing in the world, so why wasn't it introduced in the 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s? In fact, if it's so obvious why wasn't it introduced several decades earlier in European professional sports and why didn't the Americans get the idea before the Europeans? Usually, Americans are ahead of the Europeans when it comes to making a buck.

I'd guess that it's because it was perceived as bush league, as beneath sports. Execs and managers thought fans wouldn't accept it, they thought they'd get roasted in the media for it, too. Most of all they thought all that because they felt that exact same revulsion in their own hearts. So what has changed? It's not the need for money. Sports leagues have always been cash-strapped, if anything it's more profitable today than ever before. It's that values have changed. Greed used to be seen as extremely unattractive and socially unacceptable. It had to be dressed up somehow to be presentable. Pro sports was of course always a business designed to get money to owners, officials and players...but you didn't want to rub people's noses in it. The facade of athletic competition for honor and glory mattered. Now everyone is all too willing to publicly announce to the world that they'll happily sell just about anything for a dollar.

What's funny is that people have been calling ads on jerseys in the NA Big Four an inevitability for like two or three decades now. When Mariners dreamed up the Turn Ahead The Clock night and brainstormed how jerseys might evolve in 30 years, the first thing thrown out there was "Well, they'll have ads on them" and the response back was "Probably, but we're not doing that for this promotion."


And I think the key word there is "evolve." North American sports jerseys aren't turning into NASCAR driving suits overnight. Any change MLB institutes is "a limited radical change" at first and then that thing is gradually increased so it's not overwhelming.

Instant replay started with JUST home run calls, then expanded to include a few more things, then added challenges and now it's 17 things.
Interleague play was just three windows of specific matchups at first: East vs East, Central vs Central, West vs West. Then after five years, they started the division rotation; then they started making the rivalry matchups six games, expanding the schedule. Then they switched to year round interleague when Houston moved to the AL.
Heck, the DH was a one-year experiment that hasn't gone away.

It will be annoying at first, like the New Era logo on caps! Then you'll be used to it and it will be "the world didn't end when we added a jersey ad. We can expand the program to batting helmets."

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

It would infuriate me if the NHL ever got ads on their jerseys.

 

[Voight]

Hopefully the NHL never does it.

At least in soccer they get to see 45 minutes straight with no commercials.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I honestly thought that MLB would be the last professional sports league to go down this route. In fact, I thought they never would. I still hope they come to their senses.

MLB is so deep rooted with tradition, and the fans are even more deep rooted with traditionalism, that I would hope there will be a lot of push back on this. What a stain it'd be to have corporate sponsors on the jerseys when the league's jerseys/logos are absolutely gorgeous and in my opinion the best lot out of all the leagues.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

NHL is the only major sport with Ads on the playing surface. In comparison, ads on unis isn't a big deal, IMO.

Hopefully it will be one small logo in a corner somewhere, similar to the NBA.

 

[Name Nameless]

Hopefully the NHL never does it.

At least in soccer they get to see 45 minutes straight with no commercials.

Yeah, if this was in replacement of the commercial breaks, I would take it.

But it's gonna be in addition, isn't it.

Now the three things I always wonder is, how much money will they get?

And is it gonna be with some style, or are they gonna end up covered in them down the stretch?

And will the ice surface become just more and more cluttered...?

 

[Burke the Legend]

NHL is the only major sport with Ads on the playing surface. In comparison, ads on unis isn't a big deal, IMO.

Hopefully it will be one small logo in a corner somewhere, similar to the NBA.

The ads on the surface are an ugly mess too. The NHL is the hardest play to follow of the four sports, so what does the NHL do to improve this? Clutter it up with ads all over the surface make it even more difficult to view and to distract people trying to follow the play. bravo guys. I wonder if this even comes up when they are sitting around discussing why their TV #s are so low?

 

[Voight]

NHL is the only major sport with Ads on the playing surface. In comparison, ads on unis isn't a big deal, IMO.

Hopefully it will be one small logo in a corner somewhere, similar to the NBA.

Uhh yea it is.... they shouldn't put anything on the jerseys unless we get 20 minute periods with no commercials.

I'd hate to see the Shell or Goodyear logo right above an iconic logo like Detroits or Chicagos.

 

[S3rkie]

Honestly I find small jersey ads a whole hell of a lot less annoying than the superimposed ads on the glass behind the nets glitching constantly and every single aspect of the game being branded and regurgitated by PBP announcers. Also Bettman has said multiple times on the record it won't happen on his watch, so at least if they end up happing all the Bettman haters will have a consolation prize.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I laugh at all the people who think ads on uniforms is an abomination. Who gives a ****? You barely see or notice them.

Brand dilution is a real thing.

Look at the branding around arenas as an example. There is a HUGE cultural difference between Boston Garden, Joe Louis Arena, Montreal Forum... and TD Garden, Little Caesar’s Arena, Bell Centre.

And no, it’s not just age and history. Madison Square Garden retains its brand identity. Staples Center does not. The two are not on equal cultural footing. Prestige erodes when a company sells its brand as a commodity.

That’s what people are reacting to. It’s not a concern about ugly jerseys (there are plenty of those already) but a concern about the prestige of changing the jersey from an icon representing a city, into a billboard representing corporate marketing.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

Brand dilution is a real thing.

Look at the branding around arenas as an example. There is a HUGE cultural difference between Boston Garden, Joe Louis Arena, Montreal Forum... and TD Garden, Little Caesar’s Arena, Bell Centre.

It’s no, it’s not just age and history. Madison Square Garden retains its brand identity. Staples Center does not. The two are not on equal cultural footing. Prestige erodes when a company sells its brand as a commodity.

That’s what people are reacting to. It’s not a concern about ugly jerseys (there are plenty of those already) but a concern about the prestige of changing the jersey from an icon representing a city, into a billboard representing corporate marketing.

Does it effect how someone watches a game? No? Then who gives a shit?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Does it effect how someone watches a game? No? Then who gives a ****?

Sports aesthetics is actually an important part of fandom. If not, why would anybody spend money on a jersey of their own?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Does it effect how someone watches a game? No? Then who gives a ****?

You don't think people give a **** about the brand identity of the team they follow?

Really?

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

You don't think people give a **** about the brand identity of the team they follow?

Really?

You brought up arenas for some f***ing reason. If I was a Bruins fan why would I give a shit if the name of the place they play is TD Garden or Boston Garden? Just like I don’t give a shit if there’s a small advertising patch that i’m not going to notice or pay attention to. It’s just not something worth getting worked up about or being at all noticeable.

 

[KevFu]

You don't think people give a **** about the brand identity of the team they follow?

Really?

I don't think the name of the arena falls into the category of brand identity. Ads on jerseys is a totally different convo than the corporate name of the stadium/arena.

But I also think people have it backwards when it comes to that thing: The Mets and Yankees build new stadiums at the same time. The Yankees named their new place "Yankee Stadium," while the Mets bowed to the trend of corporate naming rights and the Mets got mocked for moving from Shea Stadium, named in honor of someone, to CitiField, named for the bank Citi.

However, the terms of the stadium deals meant that the $400 million Citi sponsorship deal lowered the cost TO THE TAXPAYER to $465 million, while the Yankees naming their stadium after themselves for zero dollars kept the entire $1.4 billion total solely on the taxpayer.

Naming rights are annoying, but it really affects nothing. Remember the good old days where stadiums were named without corporate involvement? Like Wrigley Field, Gordon and Koppel Field, St. George Grounds… yeah, well, Wrigley named after his chewing gum company, G&K after their clothing company, and St. George for the ferry service to the area. All corporate names from like 120 years ago.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You brought up arenas for some ****ing reason. If I was a Bruins fan why would I give a **** if the name of the place they play is TD Garden or Boston Garden? Just like I don’t give a **** if there’s a small advertising patch that i’m not going to notice or pay attention to. It’s just not something worth getting worked up about or being at all noticeable.

I brought up arenas as an obvious parallel in sports where local cultural identities have been monetized. There are tons of other examples, including some mentioned upthread.

You’re doing a lot of aggressive “I can’t believe people don’t all think the way I think” ranting here, but the objective marketing data shows that this stuff DOES make a difference in brand perception and IS highly noticeable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to monetize it in the first place.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

You’re doing a lot of aggressive “I can’t believe people don’t all think the way I think” ranting here

Because it's the dumbest thing ever. I've already had to hear all the complaining about Miller Park's naming rights being bought by American Family next year. Miller fits the Brewers name perfectly. Blah, blah, blah bunch of crying. It doesn't effect watching the game at all, it's just a stupid name just like all of these are going to be dumb patches that nobody is going to notice unless they're specifically looking for it.

There's a lot of reasons I don't go to many games at Miller Park. Having a sponsor on the jersey or the stadium name being changed is about 10 million on my list. If people want to get pissed off about something as pointless as a jersey sponsor, more power to them but you can bet your ass I'm going to point out how dumb it is.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think the name of the arena falls into the category of brand identity. Ads on jerseys is a totally different convo than the corporate name of the stadium/arena.

But I also think people have it backwards when it comes to that thing: The Mets and Yankees build new stadiums at the same time. The Yankees named their new place "Yankee Stadium," while the Mets bowed to the trend of corporate naming rights and the Mets got mocked for moving from Shea Stadium, named in honor of someone, to CitiField, named for the bank Citi.

However, the terms of the stadium deals meant that the $400 million Citi sponsorship deal lowered the cost TO THE TAXPAYER to $465 million, while the Yankees naming their stadium after themselves for zero dollars kept the entire $1.4 billion total solely on the taxpayer.

Naming rights are annoying, but it really affects nothing. Remember the good old days where stadiums were named without corporate involvement? Like Wrigley Field, Gordon and Koppel Field, St. George Grounds… yeah, well, Wrigley named after his chewing gum company, G&K after their clothing company, and St. George for the ferry service to the area. All corporate names from like 120 years ago.

Stadiums definitely do have a brand identity. There’s a reason the Yankees chose to keep their stadium name and the Mets didn’t. Yankee Stadium, like Madison Square Garden, is a brand which unto itself is more valuable than any naming deal. There is no equivalent for the Mets... there was nothing to preserve because Shea Stadium wasn’t an especially valuable or portable brand.

But you hit on something important here — if people believed any of this would actually come back to the customer, they’d likely be much more accepting of the change.

 

[ziggyjoe212]

Uhh yea it is.... they shouldn't put anything on the jerseys unless we get 20 minute periods with no commercials.

I'd hate to see the Shell or Goodyear logo right above an iconic logo like Detroits or Chicagos.

Honestly, I would happily put corporate logos on every inch of the uniforms if it meant no more commercials.
It'll never happen but these commercials are a nuisance at best. And it's only getting worse with streaming becoming the norm.

 

[KevFu]

Stadiums definitely do have a brand identity. There’s a reason the Yankees chose to keep their stadium name and the Mets didn’t. Yankee Stadium, like Madison Square Garden, is a brand which unto itself is more valuable than any naming deal. There is no equivalent for the Mets... there was nothing to preserve because Shea Stadium wasn’t an especially valuable or portable brand.

But you hit on something important here — if people believed any of this would actually come back to the customer, they’d likely be much more accepting of the change.

I don't think you're "Wrong," I just think the truth is quite small in the grand scheme of things and largely irrelevant. The "outrage" over the Mets naming it CitiField was about equal to the outrage of it being an homage to Ebbetts' Field and Jackie Robinson -- another franchise, not ours.

And I think the perfect example of this is the San Francisco ballpark. That park - like Pittsburgh - is universally praised as a great ballpark. And yet, I'm calling it the San Francisco ballpark because it's had FOUR CORPORATE NAMES and it's roughly 20 years old The equity of the ballpark name is virtually nothing, people do mock that it's had four names. The equity of the stadium itself on the other hand, has a great reputation.

People get over it. People get used to the reality of corporate dollars.

And that is what will happen with jersey ads. We'll all hate them at first, and get used to them, and then when a second one is added, we'll hate that and remind everyone we hate that the first one even exists. And we'll sigh and wish for simpler times, but then the puck drops and all we care about is winning for the next three periods. And then when it's the summer or boring time, we'll go back to complaining about these kinds of things.

(Which is what baseball does with the DH as well).

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think you're "Wrong," I just think the truth is quite small in the grand scheme of things and largely irrelevant. The "outrage" over the Mets naming it CitiField was about equal to the outrage of it being an homage to Ebbetts' Field and Jackie Robinson -- another franchise, not ours.

And I think the perfect example of this is the San Francisco ballpark. That park - like Pittsburgh - is universally praised as a great ballpark. And yet, I'm calling it the San Francisco ballpark because it's had FOUR CORPORATE NAMES and it's roughly 20 years old The equity of the ballpark name is virtually nothing, people do mock that it's had four names. The equity of the stadium itself on the other hand, has a great reputation.

People get over it. People get used to the reality of corporate dollars.

And that is what will happen with jersey ads. We'll all hate them at first, and get used to them, and then when a second one is added, we'll hate that and remind everyone we hate that the first one even exists. And we'll sigh and wish for simpler times, but then the puck drops and all we care about is winning for the next three periods. And then when it's the summer or boring time, we'll go back to complaining about these kinds of things.

(Which is what baseball does with the DH as well).

I would argue that, even though the San Francisco ballpark is praised as a great park, its brand identity is eroded by the fact that we don't even know what to call the place. Imagine having a great product and people literally don't know what it's called because you've changed the name 4 times already, so they just start calling it by a generic name. That has a real cost in terms of what you're able to do with that product in the marketplace (e.g., you COULD have had a national market for ballpark-themed merchandise, but now you really can't pull it off effectively because you can't put a recognizable name on anything).

The fact that consumers are actively coming up with generic names to avoid using the corporate slogan, which frustrates the whole idea of corporate naming rights, is a strong indicator of where the market preference really lies. That is, again, parallel to putting ads on the game worn jerseys but selling ad-free versions in the team store (because the ad materially reduces the brand value of the product).

 

[the4thlinegrinder]

“Who the hell cares about a small patch on the jersey? Get over it.”

***2 decades later***

“Who the hell cares about the entire jersey, playing surface, team names, and trophies (among other things) having corporate branding? Get over it. I’m still cheering for my Rogers™ Edmonton Oilers powered by Rexall® to take the MasterCard™ Stanley Starbucks™ Cup!”

Ad creep folks. Think long term.

 

[Buffaloed]

Use materials that display the ads to the naked eye but can be filtered out with proprietary technology. Then give fans the option to subscribe to technology that renders them invisible. MLB could partner with Amazon. The NY Mets with Special Offers!

 

[tarheelhockey]

Use materials that display the ads to the naked eye but can be filtered out with proprietary technology. Then give fans the option to subscribe to technology that renders them invisible. MLB could partner with Amazon. The NY Mets with Special Offers!

Honestly, this is how the NHL and other leagues should be monetizing digial tech. Consumers very clearly want the choice and at least some are willing to pay for it.

 

[KevFu]

“Who the hell cares about a small patch on the jersey? Get over it.”

***2 decades later***

“Who the hell cares about the entire jersey, playing surface, team names, and trophies (among other things) having corporate branding? Get over it. I’m still cheering for my Rogers™ Edmonton Oilers powered by Rexall® to take the MasterCard™ Stanley Starbucks™ Cup!”

Ad creep folks. Think long term.

Yes, you're totally right. I'm merely a pragmatist who looks at it and sighs instead of rages.