NBA jersey ad patches part of 'professional' sports
TO ME, the only serious issue concerning the NBA approving a three-year trial period of allowing advertising patches on team jerseys was addressed on Wednesday.
TO ME, the only serious issue concerning the NBA approving a three-year trial period of allowing advertising patches on team jerseys was addressed on Wednesday.
According to a report by ESPN sports/business analyst Darren Rovell, the league will not allow teams to sell uniform advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, gambling or media agencies.
Fantasy sports businesses are a gray area as far being gambling. The NBA allows marketing deals with those types of companies but will not allow their logos on the uniforms.
I'm not adverse to competitors of Nike, but considering the league signed an eight-year apparel deal with the company that will kick in for the 2017-18 season, I can understand that restriction.
Other than that, I see no problem with the small advertising patch space that will go on the left shoulder of the jersey.
I understand that many fans have a negative reaction to selling space on uniforms for advertisement. It is more proof that money is the primary force driving sports.
I say, "OK, so when was that not the case?"
The origin of "professional" sports is that they were played for profit, not simply "for the love of the game."
The selling of the advertising patch is just the latest step in the evolution of professional sports into multibillion dollar global corporations. Almost everything always has been for sale if the price was right.
Is the 2 1/2-inch-by-2 1/2-inch space the Sixers will sell on their uniforms that much different than the Eagles playing in "Lincoln Financial" Field, the Phillies at "Citizens Bank" Park or the Flyers at the "Wells Fargo" Center?
Those companies pay big dollars for those stadium naming rights.
The Flyers go on the "Peco Power Play"; the Union has segments of their broadcasts televised commercial free thanks to the company whose name stays at the top of the screen; Eagles radio broadcasts seem to have every tackle, touchdown or play sold to some sponsor.
The Phillies have "Hatfield Dollar Dog Nights" while the Flyers and Union have "Dietz & Watson Dollar Dog Nights."
Corporate signage that adds up to millions of dollars in revenue is plastered all over every stadium, arena or ballpark.
The uniform was viewed as the last sacred cow, even though it was not.
In virtually every sports league for every professional sport in every country except the United States, advertising on jerseys is just normal and intelligent business. The 20 teams in the English Premier League combine to make hundreds of millions of dollars by selling jersey space. Manchester United reportedly gets $45 million a year from Chevrolet and Chelsea $40 million from Yokohama Tires.
Even in the United States, Major League Soccer, from its beginning in 1996, and the WNBA, starting in 2011, have allowed advertising on uniforms.
The Union took some initial grief and jokes but nobody appears to be bothered anymore by the bakery "Bimbo" emblazoned across the front of the jersey.
Until now, it was only considered taboo in the big four leagues - NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL.
I think much of the negative reaction to what the NBA is doing is just a visceral response to the idea of rich people figuring out another way to make more money.
It was like that in 2001 when Philadelphia boxing legend Bernard Hopkins pocketed $100,000 for wearing a temporary tattoo of an online betting site across his back during his title fight against Felix Trinidad. It was the first incident of an athlete becoming a human billboard during a professional event.
Unlike the tattoo on Hopkins' back and the signage that takes up most of the space on the front of soccer jerseys, the patch that NBA teams sell won't even be overbearing. How many people even noticed the KIA patch on the jerseys the players wore in the 2016 NBA All-Star Game?
As NBA commissioner Adam Silver said a couple of years before the league approved signage on uniforms, it was "inevitable" just like it is inevitable that the NFL, NHL and MLB eventually will follow suit.
I was on a panel talking to journalism students at the University of Maryland last Saturday and one of the other speakers was Evan Parker, the senior director of Brand Platforms for NASCAR.
When the issue of signage on uniforms came up, Parker explained that it costs millions of dollars to simply put a Sprint Cup car on a track for race day.
The only way for fans to get the level of performance they expect for their ticket price is for car teams to sell all that advertisement on cars and drivers' uniforms so they can afford to put those cars on the track.
Obviously, the Sixers selling an ad patch to some local company won't dramatically impact their bottom line - winning a few more games would be more significant.
Brooklyn Nets CEO Brett Yormark told the Sports Business Journal he was hoping to make up to $6 million a year on the uniform patch.
Fans may view sports as games, but everyone else knows it is big business. The goal in business is to make more profit, even by selling a 2 1/2-by- 2 1/2-inch patch.
Columns: ph.ly/Smallwood