In today's paper, there was an article about the NBA considering selling "space" on their player's uniforms to sponsors.

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.

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.

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

1) If allowed, should the money be earmarked just for athletics?
2) Should each school district decide for itself, or should this be statewide with money being equally disbursed across the state?
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.

Tell 'em to put their advertising on the warm-ups instead of the shirts. That's the easy way around the FED. Might be a way for teams that can't afford nice warm-ups to have them supplied free too.

Put advertising on the coach's backs too. Maybe a Viagra ad--"take a pill and become a bigger one". :D

Around here, there are several schools that have a scorers table paid for by Hardess -- in return they have a big Ad on the front of the table. As far as the uniforms, I don't think they could be big enough to make a difference. Why not sell some ad space by the scoreboard. Everyone looks towards the scoreboard at least once during the game.

A lot of schools already sell space around the scoreboards. Believe me, a Nike swoosh on uniforms here in Oregon would be noticed.

True, but I would guess the only way that would happen is if Nike were the official supplier of Oregon High School uniforms. Maybe not....??? :)

I don't have a problem with corporate sponsorship of high school athletics at all. It is a great revenue stream for the schools, and good PR for the companies. The best thing to do would be to open it up to each district individually. Doing this would serve two purposes: 1) Schools maintain their autonomy, because some localities won't like the idea. 2) It prevents a big copmany, like Nike, from monopolizing athletics in a whole state.

To me, the ideal thing would be to have these teams sponsored by local businesses, not the Nikes of the world. Plus, there isn't much incentive for the big corporations to get involved, with the exception of athletic companies, becuase the kids aren't on TV to the point where the advertising would pay off on a national scale.

School business sponsors usually get involved because they like to help the kids, not for the return on investment. Think of little leagues around the country with "XYZ Construction" or "Mom and Pop Grocery" on the back of jerseys. I imagine, or at least hope, that High School team sponsorship would be much the same.

As far was what to do with the money is concerned, I think it depends on who raises it. If it is going to be up to the athletic departments to raise it, then they deserve most, if not all of the proceeds. If the districts are going to be the ones doing the procuring, then divide the money as they see fit.

I like the idea, but I can also see it having a lot of problems. The potential problems is one reason to let each district decide how they would like to handle the situation. Maybe the politicians in Oregon will pass a bill that at least opens the possibility for districts to use corporate sponsorhip to raise funds.

At the high school in my county, there is a very good program that gets handed out at each game. The atheletic boosters have had much success selling ad space in it over the years. That is just another example of how corporate sponsorship can have benefits.

My guess is the the NFHS will go ballistic at the sight of corporate logos on jerseys. They will forbid those states from having members on the board of directors, etc. But in reality, does anyone really care? I mean, as evidenced on this board, states have always created their own rules and acted in what they feel are their own best interests with regard to athletics. I am sure life will go on, with or without the logos.

If I have to work a game that features a team wearing "Chico's Bail Bonds" on their uniform I'll have a hard time being unbiased. Seriously though, no way do I want to see corporate sponsorships in high school athletics. I just think it would open the door for more corruption of the spirit of high school student athletes.

Or maybe Prep H?

"Soothes inflamed assh0les."

I'm totally opposed to logos on uniforms, including warm-ups. I'm opposed to anything that smacks of professional type arrangements. The local stuff around the scoreboard doesn't bother me. In some towns it provides a certain amount of entertainment. I'm still intrigued with the one that said, "Visit the Onion Festival!" and had dates. I spent several time-outs wondering if they have an Onion Queen, and a court of Chive Princesses. With maybe a Garlic Prince Consort? That kind of advertising I can live with.

That is a good idea to sell the uniform ad space. At our school system we sold the back of chairs to companys so they could have their ad on the back of the chair, the extra left over went to the school athletic department. It was very easy to sell the ad spots and chairs.

Our school?
Are you a ref or a fan?
mick

Hey, not all of us are just refs. I'm a principal too! When I say 'our school,' I will make sure to qualify my remarks!

Unless a school is a powerhouse in a particular sport, I doubt someone like Nike would be interested in working with an individual school. Big sponsors would probably rather work district-wide.

An example of the exception:

We traveled to another part of the state for a Christmas tournament. The high school's gym has full stadium seating throughout, a high wood-beamed ceiling, with windows on all sides, and a professional-type scoreboard over the court. Before our first game we marveled at the facility with the coach. At first we thought the school was private, but the coach said no. We then commented on the money the city/county must have poured into the facility. He laughed. We then asked, doubtfully, if the booster club somehow came up with the money. Finally, he told us a large shoe manufacturer was the sugar daddy. Seems the school had a high-touted, current NBA player graduate a few years ago.

I don't think I really have a big issue with selling space on the uniform, however the Fed may disagree. If they don't want it then that's also fine with me. If permitted, there would be so many guidelines that would need to be considered and because of that, it might be tooooo much to deal with as salespeople and the companies would be looking for loopholes to get around it. Ex: alcahol or tobacco companies, condom companies, RX companies, goldenpalace.com, just to name a few. I doubt they will want to deal with all that.

Some of these have been mentioned but here are some other options: scoreboard space, programs/rosters, backs of chairs, towels, warmups, banners, scorers table. Another idea is why not have corporate sponsors night. The first 300 people in the gym will get a t-shirt with the sponsors message on it. Fans will probably wear it that night and then out in public after that for a year or 2. Plus, the sponsor could set up a demo tent where they could showcase their wares. This would help in many ways because it could be incorporated in their advertising which would drive fans to the gate which will increase consessions. Could be a great marketing opportunity for small local businesses. ??

it's 9:05 AM in St. Louis. They are talking about this very topic right now on ESPN radio. Tune in if you are interested.

Mick at the time I was a fan, now that I'm ref all I see is blue. By the way notice small case letters. Dave

Attaboy, Dave! :)

Totally Against
 

I'm totally against it. I think it cheapens sports. I see this as a major rat hole too.

Forget Nike, Addias, Pepsi, and so forth. They are the big guns. What will, and would most likely happen are kids running around with uniforms advertising, Joe's Crab Shack, or Big Al's Tires. Save it for the rec leagues.

The vast majority of HS's are rural and therefore would not get the big boys. Instead it would be Billy Bob's Bar-B-Q.

Not to mention, once the pen is opened, what's to say that Bud, Coors, etc. will not try and get in on a good thing. This then would go down a national legal rat hole where one industry sues the FED because they are not allowed to advertise, while say Burger King can. Then we fight another battle as to what is worse, Burger King or the King of Beers?

Lastly, who gets the money? Let's see, the NCAA has been under increasing pressure to pay some amount to athletes since some colleges reap huge profits off their play. When Doug Flutie was at B.C., it was estimated that he generated over 10 million dollars for the university, yet he did not recieve a dime apart from a free education.

Fast forward. Here comes the next Lebron. The big boys want to advertise not so much for the school, but to possibly make a contact with a future cash cow. So they advertise on the school uniforms and such. In other words, they take care of the school. The parents of the next Lebron might not see it that way, and want compensation in some form for them using his or her rights. You know, a promotional picture? How about an early basketball card? Could they use this persons image in an advertising campaign even if local?

Don't say it won't happen, cause it is all over the NCAA with shoe deals and uniform deals. As they say, crap rolls down hill. I don't have a problem with the manufacturing logo, but that is it. I'll draw the line there. And who's to say that a parent wants their child/student running around advertising "The Pussycat Lounge" or "Porky's Bar-b-Q" especially when they are Jewish? Refuse to take those ad's....that might and in this day and age, would probably be challenged in court. What some consider normal and valid companies, others do not. So where would one draw the line?

goose

Chico's Bail Bonds is the new sponsor for Ohio State but they haven't announced it yet!

Varsity Boys basketball presented by Baccardi and Coke

Re: Totally Against
 

Let me just say that if I had my "druthers" (an old expression of my mom's. http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=19960809 ), I'd continue to keep ads off the uniforms. Having said that, I don't think your point above is really persuasive.

The fact is, as others have mentioned, that teams and schools already sell ad space in programs, on walls, and on scoreboards. Somehow, they can draw the line for those spaces. Is there really any reason to think that it would be any harder to draw the line when it came to uniform ads? I just don't think that particular point is as big a deal as you seem to.

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 26th, 2005 at 12:11 PM]

Re: Re: Totally Against
 

You're right. As a parent I object strongly to these. I mean, the "Bar-b-Q" in Porky's should be all caps. What would be teaching our children if we set this kind of example?!?

alright Goose, those are good points and I think we're mostly in agreement.

After filtering who can and can't sponsor (this would be the same guidlines as the schools dresscode), no alcahol, tobacco, etc companies, let them sponsor the offseason leagues. This could potentially save the school a ton of $$ if someone else besides the school was ponying up. In exchange, the kids will wear the sponsors name on the jersey. If a sports drink or power bar comapny wants to donate product and money, they can have banners in the weight room, etc. I think there's lots of places to put "qualified" advertisers messages but please keep them off the uniform. They can also buy the kids jackets or warmups and ask them to wear when traveling to games. How about putting your business name on their duffle bags or a magnet sign on the team bus as it travels to games?

I think there's alot of possibilities here.

In Oregon, it's mostly not the schools that pay for off-season stuff anyway. It's usually the parents. We have quite a few teams sponsored, too, especially in poorer neighborhoods. With Nike world headquarters here in Portland, sponsorship is usually not a problem.

Logos on uniforms, in my opinion, is too much.

Every state has money problems. It's a big point of debate here in Houston and Texas. Teachers aren't getting raises, but bond money is being used to build lavish athletic stadiums and fields. And, it seems to have escalated in Houston to see who can have the largest one. Supporters claim they are self-sufficient, that they will pay for themselves in admissions, concessions, etc. But the patrons will have to buy a lot of M & M's at halftime to pay for these things.

My tax dollars at work!

Juulie - you know better than that. Nike is in Beaverton, not Portland. For those of us smart enough to live in the suburbs, this is a big distinction.

Guys - here's what the legislators are thinking about (yes - occasionally they actually think): it used to be that any kid could participate in a HS sport at no additional cost. Now, there is frequently a charge to the kid to participate. If costs keep going up and revenue stays neutral or goes down, only "rich" kids will be able to participate. Eventually, using the same path of logic, sports will eventually disappear altogether due to cost.

Personally, I have no problem at all with a corporate logo on a uniform if it means sports programs can continue to operate and virtually any kid can participate if he or she is good enough regardless of family income (or lack thereof). I really don't see any difference between that and logos on scoreboards and/or in programs.

I remember the "pay to play" issue coming up in New Jersey as well. I really can't imigine why it would become necessary for kids to pay for the opportunity to play high school athletics. There are some poor school districts here in VA, and they all their kids play for free. Are the districts in these other places providing something that other places aren't. In the case of New Jersey, I found out that some schools were providing equipment to the kids that I always had to pay for myself when I played. It just seems odd that the kids would have to pay some type of fee.

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.
[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]
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.
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.
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]

I suppose if a team has red and white as colors, the stripes on the shorts could look like the stripes on a can of Coke. No words would be needed.

Here in Illinois, there are already some schools that have an 'affiliation' with certain shoe companies. I have seen the Nike, And1,and Adidas logos and shoes on complete teams. Swoosh on the shorts, etc. I also know that schools already sell ad space to local establishments. I have no problem with it, unless it gets ridiculous, like the college bowl system. No ad space on the unis, just sell ad space in a program.

What drives me nuts is when I turn on a premiership game it takes 20 minutes to determine which team is which because no team name appears--only corporate sponsors. Hope HS sports don't get that desperate. Of course, if a corporate sponsor renames the SCHOOL Nike HS or Coca-Cola Academy, I guess we'd be in a quandary.

You mean like this?

<img src="http://euroleague.nbalive.org/screenshots/menu3.jpg" border=0>

(Best pic I could find, but you get the idea.)

I don't remember a lot of folks getting upset when I played little league with "JOE'S PLUMBING" or "TED'S BARBERSHOP" or "APPOLLO SHEETMETAL" or whatever pasted on my uniform.
In fact, parents appreciated the sponsorships very much.

Maybe there will be a time when H.S. Sports need this extra revenue. I don't think I'm such a purist that a few advertisements are going to alter my memories of the game.
Afterall, that's what we go to the games for...the memories, the excitement, the competition. A few ads on a jersey shouldn't affect the game much IMO. (Heck, look at NASCAR...it hasn't affected that sport's popularity)

I have to say...if "KODAK" (for example) wanted to pay my association's dues, one camp a year, a complete uniform, and maybe a fee to be divided among our members...I'd probably vote to wear their logo...wouldn't you?

Everybody would have to go get their own sponsorship and dang-it, the only person I could get to pony up was an eye doctor!

Hope you went with the contacts instead of the coke-rims.

If just putting a logo on a HS shirt was all that was involved, that'd be OK. BUT once you start taking money, it won't be long before the Nike rep tells the coach " I think you should be playing "X" more than you do now." Because "X" is their player of the future. So what does the coach do then?

I think it just dirties the whole thing.

There is a reason that the NF and NCAA have uniform rules. That might be the reason you see the rules that Chuck is so against. :D

If they allowed sponsors on the official's uniforms, unfortunatley this would be the one....

<img src = "http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/16//nav/logo_target_bullseye.gif">

You got that right! Although, most of the objects thrown by coaches at the target would just go "over the back", so we probably wouldn't get hit.

They would throw another for the 'and one'.

For the pro level, I don't have a problem with the corporate logos on the uniforms. Of course, I am used to watching non-American pro soccer and those teams have corporate decals all over their game jerseys.

Now on the HS and NCAA level, I think that money should not be a central issue. Therefore, I don't believe that corporations should have their logos on the game jerseys.

Just my opinion.

Unfortunately, here in Oregon, money is a central issue.