NBA puts ads on uniforms, is MLB Next?

[sonny]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sonny

I do like the Chik-fil-A Fowl pole

I like that one.

[puca]

Yet another revenue stream for the owners/players that is paid for by the masses. What's not to like.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by puca

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]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

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]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

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]

Originally Posted by Captain13

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]

Originally Posted by BillDoran

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]

Originally Posted by puca

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]

Originally Posted by BillDoran

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]

Originally Posted by BillDoran

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.