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

[Rida]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

[Evantime34]

I for one don't think it's disgusting, it allows the owners to bring in more revenue which might prevent a future lock out.

[celtsfan84]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

TP.  Eloquently stated with detail and logical related references.  Very well put.

[Employee8]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

This is a case where the more marketable team gets more money and the small market teams get less money for the same ad space.  Is Sprite going to pay the same amount of money on a Grizzlies jersey than a Lakers jersey?  Of course not.  Yeah teams will get revenues but this is a far cry from the "fair" model that distributes money evenly to all teams.

Again, soccer/rugby have no commercials.  So ads on jerseys, while that sucks, makes more sense than putting ads on NBA jerseys where we are already inundated with ads (commercials, floor, billboards, arenas).

The NBA is a business and they have every right to make a profit.  Just because they can do this doesn't mean they should.

[flyofchange]

If i wear a celtics jersey i do it cause i want to represent the team/player not a company and walk around as a giant billboard, however my girlfriend is a seamstress so i really dont care cause she can easily just take that ad right off there and it will be like it never was there in the first place  

Do you have her remove the adidas logos or do you walk around as a giant adidas billboard?

I only wear the authentic jerseys dude, they dont have the adidas on there but if I were gonna buy a replica i dont see a problem with the adidas logo cause after all adidas MAKES the jerseys mcdonals, burger king,  t-mobile or whatever DONT.

Not really.  Often adidas, Nike, Reebok subcontract that work out to independently owned factories and pay so that they can put their logo on the jerseys.  Most of those companies don't really make anything.  They just sell their brand.

T-Mobile would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand and use PR to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.  Adidas would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.

It isn't as dissimilar as you would think.  The only real difference is that adidas is taking more of your money and have different contracts (of which you don't see a penny of, but still wear their brand's logo).

And make no mistake, they do it to advertise their brand, just like T-Mobile.  There is no law stating that you have to have a patch of your company logo on every product you manufacture.  A logo on the inside tag would be within the law.

Well thank you for that extremely informative report......
Who cares dude!?

I was just stating that i dont want to advertise something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with basketball or the team.
If i had to id rather wear nike, adidas or whatever brand on the jersey cause no matter what factory, what country etc makes the jersey, subcontract or not its still adidas etc who makes the jersey not "adidas by some factory in indonesia" more importantly adidas nike etc make atheltic, sports equipment Burger king dont aight.

I dont eat at burger king so i dont wanna advertise for them. I use sports equipment so i dont mind having adidas on my jersey if i had to geez.....

It is not adidas who "makes the jersey".  It is adidas who agrees to put a logo on it and profit off of it.

So just think of the jersey as being made by "Burger King by some factory in Indonesia".  It is more or less the same thing.

I find it funny that you mock my "informative report" with a "who cares" but feel like sharing the earth-shattering news that your girlfriend is a seamstress.  I doubt anyone here cares what your girlfriend's job is, dude.

And I wouldn't say that a sponsor of a team has nothing to do with a team.  That is a pretty contradictory statement.  adidas works with the NBA while the individual team sponsors work with the team.  

adidas is just as close to the HEAT as they are to the Celtics while Celtics sponsors aren't necessarily working with the HEAT or Lakers at all.

WOW.......just wow....

I dont think your getting my point.

My point was: I dont wear the adidas jerseys i wear the authentic ones, but if i were to buy and wear a rev 30 replica for instance i would not care if it says adidas in the top corner cause adidas is associated with sport products.
Burger king for example is not.

I dont give a rats furry behind if people care or not care what my girlfriend does it was just a fact i stated cause it makes it so much easier for me to remove things from clothes i dont want there.

I dont care if it says nike, adidas, puma or asics on my jersey.
I do however care if it says smith and wesson....

Its how ugly/nice the logo is and what it stands for that i care about..

get the point....

[CelticG1]

Maybe burger king isn't associated with sports but what about McDonald's?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sL1Q5oEGAc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

How about the McDonald's all american game? Nobody cares about those jerseys, people probably don't even notice it.

Yeah I get it you don't like change but pretty soon those will be the authentic jerseys. After a few years the old jerseys will look odd without an ad.

I get more annoyed with the stupid sounds and music they pump into the building. Its so artificial that'd something I wish never changed

[celtsfan84]

If i wear a celtics jersey i do it cause i want to represent the team/player not a company and walk around as a giant billboard, however my girlfriend is a seamstress so i really dont care cause she can easily just take that ad right off there and it will be like it never was there in the first place  

Do you have her remove the adidas logos or do you walk around as a giant adidas billboard?

I only wear the authentic jerseys dude, they dont have the adidas on there but if I were gonna buy a replica i dont see a problem with the adidas logo cause after all adidas MAKES the jerseys mcdonals, burger king,  t-mobile or whatever DONT.

Not really.  Often adidas, Nike, Reebok subcontract that work out to independently owned factories and pay so that they can put their logo on the jerseys.  Most of those companies don't really make anything.  They just sell their brand.

T-Mobile would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand and use PR to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.  Adidas would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.

It isn't as dissimilar as you would think.  The only real difference is that adidas is taking more of your money and have different contracts (of which you don't see a penny of, but still wear their brand's logo).

And make no mistake, they do it to advertise their brand, just like T-Mobile.  There is no law stating that you have to have a patch of your company logo on every product you manufacture.  A logo on the inside tag would be within the law.

Well thank you for that extremely informative report......
Who cares dude!?

I was just stating that i dont want to advertise something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with basketball or the team.
If i had to id rather wear nike, adidas or whatever brand on the jersey cause no matter what factory, what country etc makes the jersey, subcontract or not its still adidas etc who makes the jersey not "adidas by some factory in indonesia" more importantly adidas nike etc make atheltic, sports equipment Burger king dont aight.

I dont eat at burger king so i dont wanna advertise for them. I use sports equipment so i dont mind having adidas on my jersey if i had to geez.....

It is not adidas who "makes the jersey".  It is adidas who agrees to put a logo on it and profit off of it.

So just think of the jersey as being made by "Burger King by some factory in Indonesia".  It is more or less the same thing.

I find it funny that you mock my "informative report" with a "who cares" but feel like sharing the earth-shattering news that your girlfriend is a seamstress.  I doubt anyone here cares what your girlfriend's job is, dude.

And I wouldn't say that a sponsor of a team has nothing to do with a team.  That is a pretty contradictory statement.  adidas works with the NBA while the individual team sponsors work with the team.  

adidas is just as close to the HEAT as they are to the Celtics while Celtics sponsors aren't necessarily working with the HEAT or Lakers at all.

WOW.......just wow....

I dont think your getting my point.

My point was: I dont wear the adidas jerseys i wear the authentic ones, but if i were to buy and wear a rev 30 replica for instance i would not care if it says adidas in the top corner cause adidas is associated with sport products.
Burger king for example is not.

I dont give a rats furry behind if people care or not care what my girlfriend does it was just a fact i stated cause it makes it so much easier for me to remove things from clothes i dont want there.

I dont care if it says nike, adidas, puma or asics on my jersey.
I do however care if it says smith and wesson....

Its how ugly/nice the logo is and what it stands for that i care about..

get the point....

I get your point, even though it is not truly what you said in your other posts. I also think it is kind of silly.  If the company becomes a sponsor, then they immediately become associated with that product in a very similar way that adidas is.  Do you think the "cool kids" will find you uncool if there is a Gatorade logo on your jersey?  Is it a fashion thing, a moral/ethical thing?  What is the crux behind your objection?

Please understand that in a public forum other people are allowed to make points as well, and will sometimes even disagree with you.

[kp4000]

David Stern has really lost his mind, seriously.

[flyofchange]

If i wear a celtics jersey i do it cause i want to represent the team/player not a company and walk around as a giant billboard, however my girlfriend is a seamstress so i really dont care cause she can easily just take that ad right off there and it will be like it never was there in the first place  

Do you have her remove the adidas logos or do you walk around as a giant adidas billboard?

I only wear the authentic jerseys dude, they dont have the adidas on there but if I were gonna buy a replica i dont see a problem with the adidas logo cause after all adidas MAKES the jerseys mcdonals, burger king,  t-mobile or whatever DONT.

Not really.  Often adidas, Nike, Reebok subcontract that work out to independently owned factories and pay so that they can put their logo on the jerseys.  Most of those companies don't really make anything.  They just sell their brand.

T-Mobile would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand and use PR to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.  Adidas would contract with the NBA to advertise their brand to make a profit with an independent company making the jersey.

It isn't as dissimilar as you would think.  The only real difference is that adidas is taking more of your money and have different contracts (of which you don't see a penny of, but still wear their brand's logo).

And make no mistake, they do it to advertise their brand, just like T-Mobile.  There is no law stating that you have to have a patch of your company logo on every product you manufacture.  A logo on the inside tag would be within the law.

Well thank you for that extremely informative report......
Who cares dude!?

I was just stating that i dont want to advertise something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with basketball or the team.
If i had to id rather wear nike, adidas or whatever brand on the jersey cause no matter what factory, what country etc makes the jersey, subcontract or not its still adidas etc who makes the jersey not "adidas by some factory in indonesia" more importantly adidas nike etc make atheltic, sports equipment Burger king dont aight.

I dont eat at burger king so i dont wanna advertise for them. I use sports equipment so i dont mind having adidas on my jersey if i had to geez.....

It is not adidas who "makes the jersey".  It is adidas who agrees to put a logo on it and profit off of it.

So just think of the jersey as being made by "Burger King by some factory in Indonesia".  It is more or less the same thing.

I find it funny that you mock my "informative report" with a "who cares" but feel like sharing the earth-shattering news that your girlfriend is a seamstress.  I doubt anyone here cares what your girlfriend's job is, dude.

And I wouldn't say that a sponsor of a team has nothing to do with a team.  That is a pretty contradictory statement.  adidas works with the NBA while the individual team sponsors work with the team.  

adidas is just as close to the HEAT as they are to the Celtics while Celtics sponsors aren't necessarily working with the HEAT or Lakers at all.

WOW.......just wow....

I dont think your getting my point.

My point was: I dont wear the adidas jerseys i wear the authentic ones, but if i were to buy and wear a rev 30 replica for instance i would not care if it says adidas in the top corner cause adidas is associated with sport products.
Burger king for example is not.

I dont give a rats furry behind if people care or not care what my girlfriend does it was just a fact i stated cause it makes it so much easier for me to remove things from clothes i dont want there.

I dont care if it says nike, adidas, puma or asics on my jersey.
I do however care if it says smith and wesson....

Its how ugly/nice the logo is and what it stands for that i care about..

get the point....

I get your point, even though it is not truly what you said in your other posts. I also think it is kind of silly.  If the company becomes a sponsor, then they immediately become associated with that product in a very similar way that adidas is.  Do you think the "cool kids" will find you uncool if there is a Gatorade logo on your jersey?  Is it a fashion thing, a moral/ethical thing?  What is the crux behind your objection?

Please understand that in a public forum other people are allowed to make points as well, and will sometimes even disagree with you.

well good...

My objection is i want a jersey that says the boston celtics, not the boston celtics sponsored by tampax tampons, know what i mean? I like the jersey the way it is, it looks good and clean you know.
When they start selling these new jerseys with company names on em, I will remove whatever sponsor logo is on it if I buy one cause thats the way i like it.

I dont understand how anyone can have a beef with that, its just my personal preference.

[perks-a-beast]

I was shocked that they're going to put ads on merch jerseys. I was even more shocked to learn that alot of people over the age of 12 still buy jerseys.

[CelticG1]

I was shocked that they're going to put ads on merch jerseys. I was even more shocked to learn that alot of people over the age of 12 still buy jerseys.

Haha

[Rida]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

TP.  Eloquently stated with detail and logical related references.  Very well put.

Thanks for the TP

[Rida]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

This is a case where the more marketable team gets more money and the small market teams get less money for the same ad space.  Is Sprite going to pay the same amount of money on a Grizzlies jersey than a Lakers jersey?  Of course not.  Yeah teams will get revenues but this is a far cry from the "fair" model that distributes money evenly to all teams.

Again, soccer/rugby have no commercials.  So ads on jerseys, while that sucks, makes more sense than putting ads on NBA jerseys where we are already inundated with ads (commercials, floor, billboards, arenas).

The NBA is a business and they have every right to make a profit.  Just because they can do this doesn't mean they should.

The central issue here is competitive balance, I get what you are saying about the ads being more valuable to certain teams, but as an owner thats the risk you take buying a small market team.

I come from a European background where Manchester United and Real Madrid and Barcelona have ruled European football leagues for over 60 years fans in there thousands still support teams from the lower leagues and attend their games regularly.

The problem in U.S sports and particularly the NBA is that if you don't put a winner on the floor, your going to struggle financially.

 OKC is a small market team but I bet you their jersey sponsorship will be worth as much or close to the Knicks or Lakers. So it has less do to with the market and far more to do with actual performance on the floor.

Another point is that State farm sponsors many NBA backboards, I never saw an outrage over that, that to me is far more valuable than a jersey sponsorship as you constantly see it during the game.

I get the 'purists' points, but leagues should try and generate as much money as possible, they have to run like business' and tap into as may revenue streams as possible. Thats what sports marketing is all about.

[dark_lord]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

exactly

it was only a matter of time

[Employee8]

Are we seriously surprised by this, I am a Graduate from a Sports Business Major, and my only question is, are we surprised that this didn't happen sooner.

When players are traded we often hear the term "the NBA is a business" so why shouldn't we look at the NBA as a business in this case.

When the NBA signs a multi million dollar deal with ESPN or ABC, why are we not outraged by that, the league filters some of those monies to the teams but keeps a vast percentage for itself.

So why should we be outraged in this case when a team gets to keep these revenues?

Its been happening for over 30 years in Europe with Soccer and Rugby. FIFA has banned ads on international teams but IRB the governing body doesn't allow shirt branding on International Rugby teams.

Its an interesting topic but believe me, the NBA is far behind the curve with the European soccer leagues with Shirt branding. Bear in mind that the top teams in Europes change their shirt design every year and fans happily pay over 60 bucks for the new shirt.

This is a case where the more marketable team gets more money and the small market teams get less money for the same ad space.  Is Sprite going to pay the same amount of money on a Grizzlies jersey than a Lakers jersey?  Of course not.  Yeah teams will get revenues but this is a far cry from the "fair" model that distributes money evenly to all teams.

Again, soccer/rugby have no commercials.  So ads on jerseys, while that sucks, makes more sense than putting ads on NBA jerseys where we are already inundated with ads (commercials, floor, billboards, arenas).

The NBA is a business and they have every right to make a profit.  Just because they can do this doesn't mean they should.

The central issue here is competitive balance, I get what you are saying about the ads being more valuable to certain teams, but as an owner thats the risk you take buying a small market team.

I come from a European background where Manchester United and Real Madrid and Barcelona have ruled European football leagues for over 60 years fans in there thousands still support teams from the lower leagues and attend their games regularly.

The problem in U.S sports and particularly the NBA is that if you don't put a winner on the floor, your going to struggle financially.

 OKC is a small market team but I bet you their jersey sponsorship will be worth as much or close to the Knicks or Lakers. So it has less do to with the market and far more to do with actual performance on the floor.

Another point is that State farm sponsors many NBA backboards, I never saw an outrage over that, that to me is far more valuable than a jersey sponsorship as you constantly see it during the game.

I get the 'purists' points, but leagues should try and generate as much money as possible, they have to run like business' and tap into as may revenue streams as possible. Thats what sports marketing is all about.

You get the purists' points.  Great.  I get the marketing's point too.  Make MORE money no matter what!  If we trash the jersey, we can get money?  Great!

You're from an European background so I don't think you have much appreciation of the big 4 sports here in America.  We've had ad free jerseys (except for the maker's mark) and advertisements have always been where the advertisements should be.  However, in recent years the ads are creeping closer and closer to the court.  The State Farm ad is away from the court but it's still right there.

But the uniform is where the line needs to be drawn.  It's a representation of a civic entity.  Yes, a basketball team is a business but it's different from other businesses in that natives connect to the team and play a significant part in the establishment of its roots in the city.

Make no mistakes about it, the NBA is well off.  They haven't opened their books, not even during the lockout.  So why is this ad on the uniform necessary?  More, more, more money.  Of course.

I'd be singing a different tune if the league was broke.