PDA

View Full Version : NBA puts ads on uniforms, is MLB Next?



Ghosts of 1990
07-20-2012, 03:08 PM
Thoughts?

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/20/ads-on-basketball-jerseys-is-baseball-next/

Scrap Irony
07-20-2012, 03:13 PM
I don't care, with the caveat that it's a small patch (2"x2") on either uniform sleeve and no more. But I'm sure I'm in the minority.

Ghosts of 1990
07-20-2012, 03:27 PM
You're right. I doubt they go all nascar or international hockey on MLB uniforms in our lifetime. If Subway wants a patch on the Reds right hand sleeve... cool. I might eat an extra $5 footlong per year.

RANDY IN INDY
07-21-2012, 01:11 PM
I think it sucks.

Wonderful Monds
07-21-2012, 03:02 PM
I think it sucks.
This.

I understand where they're coming from, trying to be more like popular international sports, but this is as tacky as having a soccer team called the Red Bulls. Ugh.

Scrap Irony
07-21-2012, 03:06 PM
The Nippon Ham Fighters disagree with you.

RBA
07-21-2012, 04:15 PM
I hope the Reds get a cool advertiser like Chico's Bail Bonds.

TSJ55
07-21-2012, 04:23 PM
I dispise the NBA and think the entire league is joke so I couldn't care less what they do. But...I really don't want to see it happen to MLB.

DGullett35
07-21-2012, 05:53 PM
I don't like it. Could you imagine an advertisement on a Yankee uniform? or any classic MLB uniform for that matter. Keep the advertisements on the outfield walls and scoreboards.

gilpdawg
07-21-2012, 06:16 PM
Eh, doesn't really matter to me. It's a different world and revenue streams are changing. As long as it's not too obtrusive.

Scrap Irony
07-21-2012, 07:48 PM
I don't like it. Could you imagine an advertisement on a Yankee uniform? or any classic MLB uniform for that matter. Keep the advertisements on the outfield walls and scoreboards.

Patches for everything from All-Star Games to Ray Kroc have been around for almost 100 years. Patches hawking burgers and beer could be fun.

Revering4Blue
07-21-2012, 09:48 PM
So long as it doesn't reach this point:

Announcer: Now standing in the Tostito's On Deck Circle.. Chapman is warming up in the WalMart bullpen.

Chip R
07-21-2012, 10:10 PM
They already have ads on the uniforms. There's a Majestic logo on the left sleeve of the shirt. The hats have a logo on the back of the cap. I see Nike on a lot of the collars of the undershirts. Of course the helmets, shoes, gloves (both fielding and batting) and bats have logos on them.

BPhil4
07-21-2012, 11:47 PM
If its small and on the sleeve or something, then eh whatever. But if it gets out of hand and starts saying something like American insurance's reds or something. That'd piss me off. I don't want teams selling their name out on the jerseys. The nba maybe NEEDS this, as most teams are in the red. MLB teams spend what they want. So if youre in the red, that's on you!

RANDY IN INDY
07-22-2012, 07:19 PM
They already have ads on the uniforms. There's a Majestic logo on the left sleeve of the shirt. The hats have a logo on the back of the cap. I see Nike on a lot of the collars of the undershirts. Of course the helmets, shoes, gloves (both fielding and batting) and bats have logos on them.

And that is by the company that makes the particular item. Personally, I don't want to see any more than that.

sonny
07-22-2012, 09:56 PM
So long as it doesn't reach this point:

Announcer: Now standing in the Tostito's On Deck Circle.. Chapman is warming up in the WalMart bullpen.

I do like the Chik-fil-A Fowl pole

improbus
07-23-2012, 12:50 PM
Every part of a broadcast is sponsored, so it is not like any of this is unprecedented. Part of me would recoil at seeing ads on jerseys, but it would just become normal, like plastic helmets, AstroTurf, the bullpen car, polyester, all those powder blue jerseys, super long pants (Manny style), 3 hour games, etc...

Is someone really going to stop watching baseball because there is a Great American symbol on a shirt? It would be like giving up on listening to Mötley Crüe because they all wore leather vest with no shirt underneath. So, the sprayed hair, super tight girly pants, prancing around on stage, and eyeliner were all okay, but leather vests with no shirt, that's too far. It seems pretty silly.

Captain13
07-24-2012, 01:20 PM
I just hope they don't start putting sponser's names on the ballparks (stadiums? stadia?). Instead of Tigers Stadium and Yankee Stadium, I could not imagine going to ballparks named after gum and beer and insurance.

cumberlandreds
07-24-2012, 01:31 PM
I do like the Chik-fil-A Fowl pole


:laugh: I like that one.

puca
07-24-2012, 04:53 PM
Yet another revenue stream for the owners/players that is paid for by the masses. What's not to like.

fearofpopvol1
07-29-2012, 10:42 PM
Yet another revenue stream for the owners/players that is paid for by the masses. What's not to like.

Yeah, what's to like? If fans received a benefit (cheaper ticket prices or cheaper concessions prices for instance), I think you could rally people behind it. But to line the owner's/player's/league's pockets further?

Yeah, count me as not a fan.

dougdirt
07-30-2012, 01:07 AM
Yeah, what's to like? If fans received a benefit (cheaper ticket prices or cheaper concessions prices for instance), I think you could rally people behind it. But to line the owner's/player's/league's pockets further?

Yeah, count me as not a fan.

Doesn't lining the owners pocket, line the players pockets, which can keep players around, which can help you win more, which makes us fans happy?

ervinsm84
07-30-2012, 01:13 AM
I'm sure we all agree MLB will likely be the last major sport to put ads on the uniforms (and maybe they never will), but how long before the NFL does the same as the NBA? My guess is in the next 4-5 years the NFL will have similar patches on their uniforms.

fearofpopvol1
07-30-2012, 03:29 AM
Doesn't lining the owners pocket, line the players pockets, which can keep players around, which can help you win more, which makes us fans happy?

Most of the players and owners make plenty of money as is.

I think the ads cheapen the product.

BillDoran
07-30-2012, 04:48 AM
Most of the players and owners make plenty of money as is.

I think the ads cheapen the product.

I don't get this sentiment. We're already being bombarded with advertisements, from commercials, in-game sponsorships, advertisements throughout the arena, official this-and-that of each team...The list goes on forever.

The uniforms already have a Reebok logo on them.

This is just reluctance to change.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2012, 09:53 AM
I just hope they don't start putting sponser's names on the ballparks (stadiums? stadia?). Instead of Tigers Stadium and Yankee Stadium, I could not imagine going to ballparks named after gum and beer and insurance.

*checks sarcasm detector*

This baby is off the charts!

puca
07-30-2012, 10:38 AM
I don't get this sentiment. We're already being bombarded with advertisements, from commercials, in-game sponsorships, advertisements throughout the arena, official this-and-that of each team...The list goes on forever.

The uniforms already have a Reebok logo on them.

This is just reluctance to change.

I'm opposed to having the general populace subsidize professional sports. Someone has never watched an NBA or MLB game is still paying their part with every product they purchase. The more streams of advertising the higher the 'tax' on the general public.

BillDoran
07-30-2012, 10:54 AM
I'm opposed to having the general populace subsidize professional sports. Someone has never watched an NBA or MLB game is still paying their part with every product they purchase. The more streams of advertising the higher the 'tax' on the general public.

Agreed. But we're already so awash in advertising, this seems a rather arbitrary point to put up a stand.

fearofpopvol1
07-30-2012, 01:11 PM
I don't get this sentiment. We're already being bombarded with advertisements, from commercials, in-game sponsorships, advertisements throughout the arena, official this-and-that of each team...The list goes on forever.

The uniforms already have a Reebok logo on them.

This is just reluctance to change.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, having the company who made the product's logo on the uniform isn't the same as as "Dove" or "Crest" appearing on the player's uniform.

And I'm well aware we're already bombarded with ads everywhere. I just think putting it on player's uniforms cheapens the product of the sport.

puca
07-30-2012, 02:43 PM
Agreed. But we're already so awash in advertising, this seems a rather arbitrary point to put up a stand.

I'm sure that's what King George III was thinking too.

Advertising revenue is paid for by anyone that buy the product. Every increase in the advertising revenue is, in a sense, a 'tax' increase. Would you take the same stance if your local government was recommending an across the board sales tax increase to pay for a professional tiddlywinks team.

By the way, it is not an arbitrary point at all, I have been objecting to this type of 'hidden entertainment tax' for many, many years.

BillDoran
07-30-2012, 03:45 PM
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, having the company who made the product's logo on the uniform isn't the same as as "Dove" or "Crest" appearing on the player's uniform.

And I'm well aware we're already bombarded with ads everywhere. I just think putting it on player's uniforms cheapens the product of the sport.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, advertising is so pervasive that to take umbrage at jersey placement doesn't compute. Seems like it's a much bigger issue than that.


I'm sure that's what King George III was thinking too.

Advertising revenue is paid for by anyone that buy the product. Every increase in the advertising revenue is, in a sense, a 'tax' increase. Would you take the same stance if your local government was recommending an across the board sales tax increase to pay for a professional tiddlywinks team.

By the way, it is not an arbitrary point at all, I have been objecting to this type of 'hidden entertainment tax' for many, many years.

This I can understand. You seem to have a specific political point here (and I can't say it's one I necessarily disagree with).