NHL COO says jersey sponsorship is "coming and happening"

[codynw]

Originally Posted by GGG

I still love the I will never buy again crowd.

You will, you already buy it with a rebook logo. That ones acceptable because it's who manufactures the jersey but rebook pays the league a fee in order to advertise their logo on the jersey. They do this to sell more rebook equipment.

So all of you who say you would never buy a jersey with advertising, full stop, have already failed.

Sorry, but the manufacturers logo is completely different. It's their product, their logo being on it is not paid advertising. It's completely different than if a jersey had Toyota and McDonalds logos all over it.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by codynw

It's their product, their logo being on it is not paid advertising.

Agree 100%.

I'm fine with my truck having a GMC logo on the back. But that's a far cry from having another unrelated logo plastered all over the side to make GM more money, yet keep my truck price the same...

And saying people will absoluetly buy jerseys is as ridiuclous as saying people absolutely won't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by codynw

Sorry, but the manufacturers logo is completely different. It's their product, their logo being on it is not paid advertising. It's completely different than if a jersey had Toyota and McDonalds logos all over it.

It is paid advertising though.

Reebok pays the NHL in order to produce their Jerseys for them. They pay to get their logo and brand out there. The NHL doesn't just happen to purcahse a reebok jersey that has a manufactures logo on it.

What if Mcdonalds decided to bid on the contract to make hockey jersey's for the NHL. Would it then be okay to have the golden arches on the back of the Jersey's?

[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by GGG

I still love the I will never buy again crowd.

You will, you already buy it with a rebook logo. That ones acceptable because it's who manufactures the jersey but rebook pays the league a fee in order to advertise their logo on the jersey. They do this to sell more rebook equipment.

So all of you who say you would never buy a jersey with advertising, full stop, have already failed.

I buy jeans with a Levi's logo and sweatshirts with a nike logo. Slap a bank or petroleum logo I dont think they would sell very well. Really almost every article of clothing has a manufacturers logo, even if it's a 1/2" x 3" Reebok wordmark.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

I buy jeans with a Levi's logo and sweatshirts with a nike logo. Slap a bank or petroleum logo I dont think they would sell very well. Really almost every article of clothing has a manufacturers logo, even if it's a 1/2" x 3" Reebok wordmark.

Levi's doesn't pay a third party to put their logo on jeans. Rebook pays the nhl to put that logo on the jerseys.

Why if you replaced the rebook add with a similar sized mcdonalds logo would that change things.

[chalms04]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

I'm fine with my truck having a GMC logo on the back. But that's a far cry from having another unrelated logo plastered all over the side to make GM more money, yet keep my truck price the same...

And saying people will absoluetly buy jerseys is as ridiuclous as saying people absolutely won't.

Yet look on your commute at the number of people who are okay having a dealership logo on their vehicle, without any compensation.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by chalms04

Yet look on your commute at the number of people who are okay having a dealership logo on their vehicle, without any compensation.

A) Personally, I usually remove my dealer/shop logo unless it was an absolutely phenomenal experience. I know a number of people who are not "okay" with them. Granted, it's not the norm.
B) In the post you quoted I said "unrelated logo plastered all over the side". A dealer sticker on the back or plate holder hardly qualifies, as it's related, and usually subtle. With the exception of "Another 4x4xBig 4. Which I would honestly refuse pickup on.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by UKflames

The difference here is that a soccer teams brand is built around where they are from (Manchester, Barcelona, Liverpool, Munich etc.) rather than the logo, like in NA sports, so adding a large corporate logo to the front was no real hardship for the fans, in fact it has become the way you decifer which team strip it is.

That's a really good point. I never thought of that

[sureLoss]

small market teams are wary of jersey sponsorships:

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/westhead-wh...hips-1.133375?

Team officials in both the NHL and NBA have discussed their apprehensions over jersey sponsorships with their respective league officials, a source told TSN. The nervousness is borne out of uncertainty over how money raised through jersey sponsorships might be shared.

The rich may get richer, and leap further ahead of teams in smaller markets.
Take the NHL, for instance, where players receive 50 per cent of hockey-related revenue under terms of their labour agreement.

If there was no further revenue sharing and the New York Rangers were able to raise $12 million a year while the Winnipeg Jets could raise $2 million from jersey sponsorships, that would mean that after sharing half the proceeds with players, the Rangers would add another $6 million to their coffers, while the Jets would add $1 million.
"This is a problem for the smaller market teams," an NBA team executive told TSN. "They worry that the gulf between small and large market is going to widen."

One possibility being considered in both the NHL and NBA would see teams dedicate a percentage of their jersey sponsorship money into a combined pot that would then be shared equally by the league's teams.

[Street Pharmacist]

Their math is wrong on that article. In that example the Jets would likely lose money. As 50 goes to salary, the cap goes up. The Jets keep the full $2M, but likely spend more than that in increased player costs. The Rangers pocket $12M but have the same player cost increase as the Jets. That example makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

[MrMastodonFarm]

With the NHL moving in this direction I thought it was really interesting to see major MMA promotion the UFC moving in the opposite.
http://mmajunkie.com/2014/12/ufc-par...ne-fighter-pay

A long-rumored UFC uniform program, now officially known as the UFC’s “athlete outfitting policy,” is finally a reality.

UFC officials today announced that, beginning in July 2015, Reebok will serve as the exclusive worldwide outfitter for the world’s largest MMA promotion.

“We have come to an agreement for what we think is a landmark deal for both the sport of mixed martial arts, as well as our brand in the UFC,” UFC Chairman and CEO Lorenzo Fertitta said. “We look at this as Reebok and the UFC are essentially changing the sport’s landscape again. This clearly has never been done in combat sports.”

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

With the NHL moving in this direction I thought it was really interesting to see major MMA promotion the UFC moving in the opposite.
http://mmajunkie.com/2014/12/ufc-par...ne-fighter-pay

How is this the opposite, honestly asking? I might not understand, but isn't this the first step that would allow them to go in this direction? All this is, is UFC gaining control over the "uniform" worn by the athletes, which in the past (is my understanding but could be wrong) was something the athletes controlled themselves. This is UFC, striking it's first deal, with Rebook, so that they can get access to revenue from a title sponsor like Rebook.

I get in the short term, it's going to reduce the advertisements we see on the "uniforms" in UFC, as the fighters can no longer pimp out their own stuff or sell space, but there is nothing stopping UFC from starting to sell space at a later date.

This is just the corporation taking hold of a revenue stream, how they choose to grow it moving forward is TBD obviously, but UFC selling ad space on fighters butts couldn't happened until they took this step.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

How is this the opposite, honestly asking? I might not understand, but isn't this the first step that would allow them to go in this direction? All this is, is UFC gaining control over the "uniform" worn by the athletes, which in the past (is my understanding but could be wrong) was something the athletes controlled themselves. This is UFC, striking it's first deal, with Rebook, so that they can get access to revenue from a title sponsor like Rebook.

I get in the short term, it's going to reduce the advertisements we see on the "uniforms" in UFC, as the fighters can no longer pimp out their own stuff or sell space, but there is nothing stopping UFC from starting to sell space at a later date.

This is just the corporation taking hold of a revenue stream, how they choose to grow it moving forward is TBD obviously, but UFC selling ad space on fighters butts couldn't happened until they took this step.

Actually yeah, good points. I hadn't thought about it beyond just hearing about it. Putting uniforms just puts them in line with all other major sport brands, then this allows them to sell space on these. Like soccer that I missed quickly scanning the article.

Just thought it was a surprise giving the way the fight game has always been.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by codynw

Sorry, but the manufacturers logo is completely different. It's their product, their logo being on it is not paid advertising. It's completely different than if a jersey had Toyota and McDonalds logos all over it.

Yup you nailed it. It is totally different. They are the jersey manufacturer and not some 3rd party name branding.
I fear unfortunately this is coming though just look at any of the junk the Flames handout as give aways on certain games or player honors.
It used to be cool stuff but I would say the last 4-5 years it is just sponsored junk with the corporate sponsors name all over it.
Owners across the NHL are just chomping at the bit to charge whatever companies to plaster their names all over the jersey.
Even if it is 1 company it could rapidly turn into soccer jerseys where the team logo is the size of a shoulder crest and for example Enmax is front and center.
Oh well one can always wear old jerseys and avoid that goofy sponsored look all together.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Actually yeah, good points. I hadn't thought about it beyond just hearing about it. Putting uniforms just puts them in line with all other major sport brands, then this allows them to sell space on these. Like soccer that I missed quickly scanning the article.

Just thought it was a surprise giving the way the fight game has always been.

Hey, if there's a way to take money away from the fighters and put it in the UFC's pocket instead, Dana White is going to find it.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by nik-

Hey, if there's a way to take money away from the fighters and put it in the UFC's pocket instead, Dana White is going to find it.

Larf.