Connect with us

Sporting KC

The Argument Against Jersey Sponsorships

While it’s become common place in American soccer and around the world, that doesn’t mean it’s how it should be.

Published

on

Credit: Thad Bell

There’s been some excited chatter recently about Sporting Kansas City likely getting a third kit for 2024 and I’m right there for it. My son is a big jersey collector and it’s fun to peek into his closet and see a mint green Chelsea top next to a Man City kit with lightning bolts. As much as third kits can sometimes be confusing (let’s completely disregard any color scheme normally associated with our team), more often than not they are fun and distinctive and create ever more diverse ways to show your fandom.

But lost in any discussion of third kits, or just professional soccer jerseys in general, is the element that is usually most visible front and center: the sponsorship. I know that soccer is a business, and most businesses are interested in whatever is going to increase revenue. And so, from that perspective, if a company is willing to pay a team $X to splash their logo across the chests of athletes, it’s logical for the team to take them up on that offer.

What I don’t understand is why that became the virtual rule for soccer clubs across the world. I remember in the earlier days for SKC, fans were eager for the team to get a jersey sponsor; it was almost like the team wasn’t legitimate until they were running around with “Ivy Funds” scrawled across their torso.

Again, I ask the question of why? This isn’t a thing in other sports. Yes, the Chiefs now play at GEHA field, but their jerseys aren’t brought to us by, say, Skittles. Lebron has won championships wearing several different outfits, but none of them sported the Geico gecko. Really, the closest thing we find (at least with domestic sports) to soccer’s jersey sponsorships is with auto sports. A NASCAR vehicle is so covered in ads that they’re sometimes even referenced that way (as in “the Bass Pro car edged out the Monster energy drink”). Do soccer teams really want to have car racing as their closest comparison?

I mentioned that my son collects jerseys and there is a part of me that cringes when he gets one that has, for example, Emirates or Qatar Airways sprawled across it. Not only is he, in effect, becoming a walking advertisement for an oil-rich country, he’s participating, in a small way, in the ever-increasing practice of sportswashing. That’s a whole different article for another time, but needless to say it feels like a different line could be drawn regarding what sort of companies are allowed to sponsor kits. There already exists some delineation with sponsors (we don’t have any Marlboro teams out there), but perhaps what’s currently permitted should be reconsidered.

This flipside of the conversation surrounding morally complicated sponsorships, would be the direction that Sporting KC initially seemed to be heading. If a team is determined to plaster some third party on their tops, they could go the route of supporting an organization doing good in the world. While it never resulted in actual jersey sponsorship, SKC was connected to Livestrong (before all of Lance’s misdeeds were known), their own Victory Project and now to Children’s Mercy Hospital.

Sporting Kansas City’s 2021 Primary kit with the Victory Project as their lead sponsor. | Credit: Sporting Kansas City

While my preference would always be to simply have a team represented on their athletic wear, the next best option would be to go with something else I could be proud to support. In a small way, the NFL is doing this by allowing athletes to include Black Lives Matter statements on their helmets. Not that I’m going to be walking around with a football helmet anytime soon, but if I did, I wouldn’t mind if it read “Stop Hate” across the back.

I get that jersey sponsorships are a European thing (sports beyond soccer have kit sponsors on the continent), and I get that because the best soccer in the world is played in Europe, it results in other leagues/teams copying what they’re doing.

When MLS started nearly 30 years ago, it was its own thing. None of the teams had jersey sponsorships, except perhaps, a Mastercard logo appearing on D.C. United’s shorts, and only the United had a name that likened itself to teams across the pond. Well, that independence from European influence didn’t last as less than a third of MLS teams now have a name that isn’t a direct connection to some sort of European naming style or team. And…every team has a jersey sponsor. As much as it amuses me every time SKC plays against the Philadelphia Bimbos, it’s also just a reminder of something that, at its foundation, is simply corporate greed.

KC Current Contributor

7 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
InToTouch

I think it would be cool if SKC offered those spaces to non-profits or community organizations instead of selling them for advertising. That’s a great idea

Sid Much Rock

I’m just amazed that this is controversial. I can’t imagine wanting to advertise for some corporation you have no affinity for. I remember when we got the first sponsor there were people who wanted to get the logo added to their existing jerseys. Is the thought that some want to conspicuously reward a corp for supporting their team as a thank you? Anyway as the author notes, it’s capitalism. And presumably that money helps us sign Mo Salah so go get that logo money, but if I could buy a new jersey without a logo I would. I’d even pay $5 tax to the Mo Salah pot.

Bryan Flores (aka Chzbro)

I abhor jersey sponsors, so it makes me warm and fuzzy to see so many smart people agreeing with me.

KCOutsider

The most logical argument I’ve seen for why this is a soccer thing, is that soccer doesn’t have the same TV space for advertising as any other sport, so needs to make it up on the jersey. E.g., the tradeoff for uninterrupted flow of play is a jersey sponsor. When looked at through that lens, I can almost accept it, because one of the things I truly love about soccer is that the fan/TV experience is entirely focused on the game, not constant commercial breaks.

The flip side is that I truly detest the dominance of corporate logos on soccer jerseys and will never, ever buy one. I own three hockey jerseys, which are the absolutely opposite of a soccer jersey. The only SKC stuff I own is a basic T-shirt with the actual logo, and a scarf. I see no justification for spending crazy money on a “real” jersey with even a benign logo, when I can spend less than $30 to get a garment with my team’s color and branding on it that makes the point perfectly well, and that I don’t have to feel embarrassed about walking around in.

The problem is, the monetary arms race (especially in modern MLS) means no team is likely to give up the practice. Hell, it’s creeping into other sports that used to be “pure” (like MLB and NHL). There was a massive fan uproar among hockey fans when truly classic jerseys like the Montreal Canadiens started added sponsor patches. But what are fans supposed to do? There’s no leverage. The good news in hockey is that the new sponsor patches are only on player jerseys, not on fan-sold jerseys (for now). It would actually be cool for soccer teams to follow this model and sell fan jerseys with just the team branding, leaving the corporate branding for players, but of course that would dilute the value of the sponsorship.

Finally, I’d be cautious about going too far in wanting sponsorships to be “good”. This gets political, or at least personal, really quickly, and has the potential to be divisive. For example, to many people sponsorship by something like a children’s hospital is benign/good: they’re helping children, what’s not to like? For others, it’s a sign of the rampant flow of money into health care that’s collectively driving health care (and insurance costs) through the roof; the argument here being that a hospital has no business having enough extra cash lying around to sponsor a soccer team. Indeed, that’s what happened to CITY’s first jersey sponsor; the board (or was it the shareholders) of the health-care company that signed the deal rebelled and forced them to back out, seeing it (rightly) as a waste of money for an entity whose focus should be elsewhere.

Man that got long fast.

KCOutsider

Correction, it was their stadium (not jersey) sponsor. Example source.

St. Louis City SC renamed its new home facility CityPark after the club and local healthcare company Centene Corp. terminated a planned 15-year naming rights deal for the 22,500-capacity, $458m (€427m) stadium after just eight months.

ar_jhawk

Closer to home, SKC had that problem with Livestrong. Oops!

Chad Smith

I hadn’t heard the TV space argument, but that makes total sense. I love the lack of commercials in soccer (hence hating MLS 360 putting commercials in what should be a Redzone style show).

I wonder what NASCAR’s excuse is?

Recent Comments

KC Soccer Journal in your Inbox!

Be the first to know when news breaks, sign up to get all of our posts sent directly to your inbox.

Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

7
0
Make your voice heard. Leave a comment!x
()
x