Disgusting...NBA to have ads on uniform starting 2013-2014

[celticinorlando]

turning into freakin soccer. just awful

[Rondo2287]

turning into freakin soccer. just awful

I was about to say, if this would reduce tv timeouts for commercials like Soccer, I would be all for it.  Though I think its just a moneygrab at this point.

[celticinorlando]

instead of ads on jerseys....allow teams to set deals with uniform makers..get the money that way...

each team can go to nike, adidas, UA etc and get big money that way

[Kuberski33]

To me, Stern has always been about marketing stars vs teams so this hardly comes as a surprise.  It's going to probably boost uniform sales because - as with soccer - there will be a new one every season, though I imagine the chance for a company to lock into the Celtics or Lakers long term could pay out some HUGE revenue. 

Personally though I don't like it.

[Fafnir]

instead of ads on jerseys....allow teams to set deals with uniform makers..get the money that way...

each team can go to nike, adidas, UA etc and get big money that way

That would result in more revenue for the big market teams and less for others.

A single uniform making makes far more sense when you're talking league wide sharing of the money.

[AshyLarry]

turning into freakin soccer. just awful

I was about to say, if this would reduce tv timeouts for commercials like Soccer, I would be all for it.  Though I think its just a moneygrab at this point.

The NBA is one big moneygrab anyway. It's ridiculous.

[celtsfan84]

yeah we all seen how great its worked for the Wnba /sarcasm off

Works well for soccer and NASCAR though.  Personally, I can't see any reason not to.

For those who buy jerseys, would a 2 inch Sprite patch really stop you from buying a jersey?

Hell yes! I support the Boston Celtics, not effing sprite or crest or skoal or what have you.

Don't they all already have the manufacturer logo on them anyway?

Do you support the Boston Celtics or do you support Adidas?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've never seen the problem with businesses trying to generate revenue.

I actually like Adidas very much (contradiction, I know).

But a jersey isn't an advertisement for Adidas, it's a product.

And it's not about businesses gaining revenue, it's about the already greedy David Stern wanting an extra 100 mil to pay millionaires a few more million.

Adidas certainly sees it as both, otherwise they wouldn't put their logo on it.  Adidas does it to build their brand in the same way that Sprite and Crest will.

Also, the process of manufacturing is more complex than at face value.  For instance, Nike nowadays doesn't manufacture much of anything.  They outsource that actual process.  It is highly likely that Adidas didn't make that jersey you wear.  

They just made a deal with the factories they work with for the rights so they could put their logo on it.  Much like Sprite will make a deal with the NBA for rights to put their logo in it.

I know there are subtle differences here and a whole collegiate class could stem from this post, but it is more similar than you might think.

[AshyLarry]

yeah we all seen how great its worked for the Wnba /sarcasm off

Works well for soccer and NASCAR though.  Personally, I can't see any reason not to.

For those who buy jerseys, would a 2 inch Sprite patch really stop you from buying a jersey?

Hell yes! I support the Boston Celtics, not effing sprite or crest or skoal or what have you.

Don't they all already have the manufacturer logo on them anyway?

Do you support the Boston Celtics or do you support Adidas?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've never seen the problem with businesses trying to generate revenue.

I actually like Adidas very much (contradiction, I know).

But a jersey isn't an advertisement for Adidas, it's a product.

And it's not about businesses gaining revenue, it's about the already greedy David Stern wanting an extra 100 mil to pay millionaires a few more million.

Adidas certainly sees it as both, otherwise they wouldn't put their logo on it.  Adidas does it to build their brand in the same way that Sprite and Crest will.

Also, the process of manufacturing is more complex than at face value.  For instance, Nike nowadays doesn't manufacture much of anything.  They outsource that actual process.  It is highly likely that Adidas didn't make that jersey you wear.  

They just made a deal with the factories they work with for the rights so they could put their logo on it.  Much like Sprite will make a deal with the NBA for rights to put their logo in it.

I know there are subtle differences here and a whole collegiate class could stem from this post, but it is more similar than you might think.

That's beside what I'm getting at anyway. If it were my choice, jerseys wouldn't be sponsored at all, and athletes wouldn't get payed kajillions of dollars.

[celtsfan84]

instead of ads on jerseys....allow teams to set deals with uniform makers..get the money that way...

each team can go to nike, adidas, UA etc and get big money that way

That would result in more revenue for the big market teams and less for others.

A single uniform making makes far more sense when you're talking league wide sharing of the money.

That's a great point and one I thought about too.  How can the Bobcats and Kings possibly get as much for a uniform patch as the Lakers and Celtics?

That $100 million projection is going to skew towards the teams that don't need it.  To me that is the real issue.  Excellent point.

[bdm860]

yeah we all seen how great its worked for the Wnba /sarcasm off

Works well for soccer and NASCAR though.  Personally, I can't see any reason not to.

For those who buy jerseys, would a 2 inch Sprite patch really stop you from buying a jersey?

Hell yes! I support the Boston Celtics, not effing sprite or crest or skoal or what have you.

Don't they all already have the manufacturer logo on them anyway?

Do you support the Boston Celtics or do you support Adidas?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've never seen the problem with businesses trying to generate revenue.

I actually like Adidas very much (contradiction, I know).

But a jersey isn't an advertisement for Adidas, it's a product.

And it's not about businesses gaining revenue, it's about the already greedy David Stern wanting an extra 100 mil to pay millionaires a few more million.

Adidas certainly sees it as both, otherwise they wouldn't put their logo on it.  Adidas does it to build their brand in the same way that Sprite and Crest will.

Also, the process of manufacturing is more complex than at face value.  For instance, Nike nowadays doesn't manufacture much of anything.  They outsource that actual process.  It is highly likely that Adidas didn't make that jersey you wear.  

They just made a deal with the factories they work with for the rights so they could put their logo on it.  Much like Sprite will make a deal with the NBA for rights to put their logo in it.

I know there are subtle differences here and a whole collegiate class could stem from this post, but it is more similar than you might think.

That's beside what I'm getting at anyway. If it were my choice, jerseys wouldn't be sponsored at all, and athletes wouldn't get payed kajillions of dollars.

And then you wouldn't see great athletes playing basketball, be able to watch it on tv, read about it in magazines, play basketball video games...

The NBA is a business, they should make as much money as they can.  If you want the alternative go sit in the bleachers of your local rec league and watch free, unsponsored basketball.

[Fafnir]

instead of ads on jerseys....allow teams to set deals with uniform makers..get the money that way...

each team can go to nike, adidas, UA etc and get big money that way

That would result in more revenue for the big market teams and less for others.

A single uniform making makes far more sense when you're talking league wide sharing of the money.

That's a great point and one I thought about too.  How can the Bobcats and Kings possibly get as much for a uniform patch as the Lakers and Celtics?

That $100 million projection is going to skew towards the teams that don't need it.  To me that is the real issue.  Excellent point.

I think the article implied that the money would be pooled and then shared. But certainly companies will pay more for the Heat/Celtics/Lakers/Bulls than Kings/Grizz/etc..

[Employee8]

The NBA is a business, they should make as much money as they can.  If you want the alternative go sit in the bleachers of your local rec league and watch free, unsponsored basketball.

Yes, the Celtics are a "business" but it's also a civic entity that we all can identify with.  It's a "business" that we grow up with and is something that draws people from different background together.  I recognize capitalism and America's success on that system.  This is the case of "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

The NBA can create more profit with this.  But should they on the expense of tarnishing the uniform?  I say no.  I say there is no price for the uniform itself.

I say no to a 2" x 2" square.  I say no to a 1/2" by 1/2" square.  I say no to a foot long advertisement.  I say no to ads on uniforms. 

[CelticG1]

This is kind of like the Boston Garden changing to the fleet center. At first I was dissapointed as a 9 year old kid, then 5 minutes passed and I was over it.

If you are into NBA fashion that's great otherwise what's the problem? You are going to be dissapointed that your team isn't running around in clean cut green jerseys?

I mean we are talking about basketball jerseys. Is it going to be distracting watching games like that? Or are you annoyed that you will have to wear a jersey with an add on it if you want to by one? Do you just not like change?

I just don't see how it affects the enjoyment of the game and does anything to tarnish it.

Every NBA has changed their jerseys or at least got alternate jerseys. Things change

[Chris]

The NBA is a business, they should make as much money as they can.  If you want the alternative go sit in the bleachers of your local rec league and watch free, unsponsored basketball.

Yes, the Celtics are a "business" but it's also a civic entity that we all can identify with.  It's a "business" that we grow up with and is something that draws people from different background together.  I recognize capitalism and America's success on that system.  This is the case of "just because you can doesn't mean you should".

The NBA can create more profit with this.  But should they on the expense of tarnishing the uniform?  I say no.  I say there is no price for the uniform itself.

I say no to a 2" x 2" square.  I say no to a 1/2" by 1/2" square.  I say no to a foot long advertisement.  I say no to ads on uniforms. 

Tarnishing the uniform?  I know the C's are a bit of an exception, as they have kept a more traditional uniform (although they still do branch out a bit with their third jersey, etc.), but the majority of uniforms in the NBA have changed dramatically over the years (or in some case SHOULD). 

There are only a few franchises where I could see there being any sort of sentimental issue with this.  Boston, Knicks, and Lakers...maybe the Bulls. 

Yeah, it will be shocking at first.  Change is tough.  But in a year or two, no one will even notice the changes. 

[Jon]

They've done this is in European soccer and car racing all over the world for a while now.  It's no surprise.  

I'm not thrilled, but let's be realistic.  The NBA is a money making business and ads are part of that business.  It's not like the NBA, ads or not, was ever some pure paradise where everyone does everything for the love of the game.  

But to be honest (and I'll get on my soapbox for a second), that's what actually makes me like professional sports more than college sports: it's more honest.  Professional sports are a business and there's no real facade about that fact.  College sports are also a business, but people like to pretend that it's not and that everyone does everything for the love of the game.  And to me, that delusion partly led to what happened at Penn State.  

Enough now with that.  Overall, not thrilled about the ads, but it is what it is because the NBA is what it is.