[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Here in Oregon, there are some state legislators who are considering introducing a bill that would allow school districts to sell corporate sponsorships for their athletic teams. The sponsors would then be able to have their logos on uniforms.

There are a lot of HS gyms with advertising already in them. There is nothing stopping a school sports program from taking a "donation" and displaying a sign of the donor. It may allow it to be more formal...a contracted amount and and a contracted display.

Originally posted by Mark Padgett


I'd like to hear a discussion by us on the pros and cons of this. Please note that here in Oregon, school funding is at "crisis" level and the state and school districts are considering almost anything to raise money.

[rant=on]
It's always at a crisis level. It will remain so as long as they have one of the sweetest retirement programs in nation. There are teachers retiring earlier than they would have because they get more income from their retirement program than they do working (and Oregon ranks 14th in the nation in teacher pay from 2003 numbers). Then they come back as contract workers for the school and get a paycheck and the retirement at the same time. There are several other loopholes in the system that public workers use to boost their retirement. For those that get paid vacations (administrators and such), they accrue vacation until their last year or two and take cash in lieu of vacation. The retirement income is calculated based on their total pay over the last few years before retirement. By accruing the vacation time and taking cash in the last few years, they get paid now for not taking it and they boost their retirement pay by 4-6% (or even more) for the rest of thier life. (This is not limited to teachers).

They've also pulled stunts such as giving up one benefit in exchange for something else only to go back to court afterwards and argue that they couldn't legally give it up then effectively keep both.
[rant=off]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Here are some of the points the lawmakers have under consideration:

1) If allowed, should the money be earmarked just for athletics?

I'm mixed on this one. I think the sports programs should get a defined portion of it but can see arguments for sharing it with the performing arts programs which have no source of income and cost the same if not more to run.

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

2) Should each school district decide for itself, or should this be statewide with money being equally disbursed across the state?

No. They do that now with taxes...distributing them across the state and limiting what local residents are permitted to self-impose. It hurts the willingness of contributors when they know their money is not going to the school/organization they want but being split 1000 ways.

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

3) Could sponsors pick and choose which sports to sponsor?

Some I have thought of include:

1) What would the reaction of the NF be to this and how much authority could they impose on a state law?
2) What happens if an Oregon team with a corporate logo plays in another state that doesn't allow them?
3) Would corporate logos on official's uniforms be next?

My local state rep is one of those involved in this and he is a good friend of mine, so he has asked me to give him some advice.

What do you guys think? Too commercial for high school, or should we "bite the bullet" because we need the money? Here in Oregon, we already sell vending machine space in schools to Coke, Pepsi, etc. and pipe in commercial cable news programs.

A state law allowing it is orthogonal to the rules of the game. State laws can only prohibit things beyond that prohibited in the rules of a game...not allow things in the game that the rules prohibit. State laws don't prohibit people from wearing earrings but the rules do. Which do we go by?



[Edited by Camron Rust on May 26th, 2005 at 03:02 PM]