Today I have been pondering the necessity of kit sponsors. As you all should know, last year's kit didn't have one, which I found to be rather refreshing, and I would be delighted if this was to happen again in the future. You may be aware that there have been plenty of teams in the past who have decided to opt out of kit sponsorship, such as Athletic Bilbao who I have mentioned a couple of times before because they are a model of awesomeness. If anyone has any information to share about why they choose to do this, and what this means for their finances, that'd be great. So I thought, I'd start a discussion on the pros and cons of advertising on football shirts (and I will be the first to admit that I don't really know how it works), so that we can determine whether it's actually necessary for a football club to taint its kit with evil evil advertising. Go.
Not only does the sponsor pay, it clearly dates the shirt, often more clearly than the design changes.
The sponsoring company wishes to expose their business to as many people as possible. Sponsoring a football teams kit allows this. The chairman, board, whoever deals with sponsorships then searches for the most lucrative deal. The most lucrative deal to the club is the one that is picked. It's really not a difficult thing to understand. It's all about generating the maximum profit over the course of the sponsorship.
They can't be paying that much though, if clubs can manage without. It also begs the question how much would a company be willing to pay just to be branded on a football shirt? They can't surely be gaining that much from it.
Can't be paying that much? are you serious? the biggest kit sponsorship deals are mega bucks. Barcelona, potential £150million over 5 years.
But didn't they have a sponsor-less kit not too long ago? Let's look at it from the opposite perspective - why are some teams choosing to go without? It can't be affecting their economy that much.
I like the idea of not having a sponsor on the shirt. Not because it's evil advertising, I like the idea of the shirt being sacrosanct - there no getting away from the fact that marketing and advertising are needed for the financial competition and operation of a successful football club, but it would be nice to keep that around the pitch and off the shirt. However when I think of Rank Xerox and Draper Tools...hell, even Dimplex (waddeva that was) I go misty eyed. But they were REAL sponsors back then; workhorse photocopies, pliers, spiritlevels screwdrivers and chisels, and Boiler companies? NOT transient software apps and betting portals.
The money obviously depends on team involved. I believe that our sponsorship wasn't that dear, but it's all money in the coffers. AAP3 could have got themselves the bargain of the century unless Nicola inserted a little promotion clause (which wouldn't surprise me). If we had gone all grand and said we didn't want sponsors, you can bet the media would have turned it round and said we were unattractive to sponsors.
Who cares what the media thinks? I think it would be a bold statement to opt out. Only if we could afford to though, obviously.
They gave the space to unicef didn't they? Most teams arn't choosing to go without, it's generally for marking a special occasion or the deal isn't right for the club, which I believe is the position West ham got themselves in. You would be a fool to turn down sponsorship if it's favourable for the club.
Only if we could afford to though, obviously. The purpose of this thread is to determine whether a football club could fully function without the income generated by a shirt sponsor, not by redistributing that income elsewhere. I'm struggling to believe that a club like ours generates a large proportion of its income from a small local company like Aap3.
It's a simple P&L sheet, Joesteinberg. If any club takes an income out, they either have to find it elsewhere, or spend less on something.
To be fair to aap3, they are local - Chilworth..! Only a bloody great big stones' throw from me. IIRC, Cortese didn't make a point of plumping for the megabucks, but decided that regional sponsorship was the best things for all parties. It's extremely rare for me to like anything associated with advertising, but I quite like the logo. please log in to view this image
As soon as aap3 were named as a sponsor, I noticed the fact that the logo looks like a smirk..turned out to be quite apt.
Joe, as you are still only 21 maye you should be going out and meeting girls there more to being young than talking about the pros and cons for football shirt sponsorship, when infact everyone knows the answer!
Don't try and be condescending mate. Maybe as you're older than 21 you should work on your grammar. And so far, this thread has shown that in fact no one knows the answer, including myself.
