Jose from Spain writes in response to this post:
I just wanted to comment on the logo thing on the bases. Here in Spain, where soccer is the most important sport, they have had ads on their shirts for ages. Some teams have an ad on the shirt and another one on their pants, on the butt. And the game is the same and commands the same passions. After a while you don’t really notice. I think it’s inevitable that baseball will do the same. Some soccer teams (Real Madrid, Manchester United) take in 10-12 million a year on their sponsorship deals for the shirts.
By the way, a Spanish team (Atletico de Madrid) has a deal with a movie studios and it displays a movie in the shirt, which changes about every six weeks or so.
What they haven’t done, though, is put logos on the pristine green field. Rugby has though. Last Six Nations tournament (the most important rugby tournament in Europe, played by England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy) had a couple of prominent logos of the Royal Bank of Scotland on the playing field. Or pitch, as they say in the UK.
European basketball has also big logos on the court. Like some NBA teams (the Rockets come to mind with that rocket drawn on the court, at least a few years ago), European basketball teams have logos on the court, similar to the NBA Finals logos you get at Finals time. Also, the keys and the central circle may have also some ads.
So, what is the fuss about some small logos on the bases which can’t even be seen on TV?
Some people just like to make a fuss, Jose.
“Some soccer teams (Real Madrid, Manchester United) take in 10-12 million a year on their sponsorship deals for the shirts.”
is that dave’s “parity” argument i see flying out the window?
oh well, everyone else is doing it, therefore it can’t be wrong. lie down and accept your fate, indie scum.
or don’t.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-spider-manoffbase&prov=ap&type=lgns
Regarding the comment from Jose from Spain…
Some say that the reason advertising on soccer uniforms doesn’t seem obtrusive is because we’re used to it. This is true, but it’s amazing how the look and character of a jersey can change completely with the arrival of a different sponsor upon its front. Manchester United were sponsored by Sharp for years, Liverpool by Crown Paints, and Arsenal by JVC. Now they’ve got Vodafone, Carlsberg and O2 respectively. The large O2 (they’re a cellphone company) on the Arsenal jersey is particularly different from those that went before.
The only club which has always refused to go with the trend is Barcelona. The reason for the strength of feeling about this issue stems from the fact that Barcelona is the capital of Catalonia in Northern Spain, and the Barcelona colours are the colours of the Catalonian flag. Like the Green Bay Packers they are in effect owned by the city and any substantial change to the kit, and allowing a corporate sponsor’s logo to appear on the front would definitely count as a substantial change, would have to be passed by the members. Even allowing the kit maker’s logo (right now it’s the swoooooooosh) to appear on the jersey was seen as controversial at first.
And while I’m on the subject, international soccer teams don’t wear logos in competitive international matches (in friendlies, anything goes). When in Lansdowne Road attending a soccer match, the crowd cringes as the team is announced as “The Republic of Ireland, sponsored by Eircom” (Eircom = national semi-state telecoms company). However at least the jerseys remain clean and green, untouched by corporate smut. Unfortunately, where the fans are concerned, it is impossible to buy a replica jersey without the corporate logo being emblazoned on the chest.
You tell me about Barcelona? I live in Barcelona and I have been a Barcelona fan since I was born (before I lived eight years in the US, discovered baseball and became a Red Sox fan). There is a couple of factual errors I’d like to correct. The colors of Barcelona are not those of the Catalan flag, the flag is yellow and red, while Barcelona is blue and red. During the Franco dictatorship though, the Catalan flag was prohibited, so many people would use the Barcelona flag instead.
The reason that Barcelona has no sponsor logo is not related to political reasons. It is just that the club, which is also not owned by the city but by 120,000 “members” (akin to shareholders), always prided itself in having had enough money not to need the sponsor.
Ironically, after four years not winning anything and being relegated to the UEFA Cup (instead of the richer Champions League) last year the members gave the front office permission to explore the possibility of finding a sponsor for the shirt. They didn’t find one who’d pay as much as Madrid or Manchester, so they decided not to do it. But because they didn’t get a large offer, not because they had many moral qualms about it.
Money rules. As soon as a baseball team decides it can get 12 million a year (the salary of one superstar) to sell the shirt to a corporate sponsor, then all will do it. And unfortunately, see three posts above, this won’t help competitive balance, it will worsen it. I am sure the Yankees could command a much larger figure than the Pirates… So maybe it’s better left this way!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t soccer broadcast largely commercial-break free? It’s pretty much non-stop “action”, no? Any assumption that owners/netwroks would give back commercial breaks when given more product placment and ingame advertisement spots is probably wrong.
Baseball is a game that lends itself to commercial breaks (the breaks between innings, breaks when new pitchers come out, etc.). Soccer is a game that does not, thus the in-game advertisement.
Because some folks are so attached to the past, they can’t see the forest for the trees. Advancement? Nah, bitch and moan.