Fed press release link

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But why does the Federation think it knows better about this than its members do? I could understand if Fed itself were licensing its logo & didn't want it slapped on certain things, but this measure is not about separating those. Rather, Fed is dictating to member organiz'ns what they can put logos on.

This is not like a governing body wanting to keep professional players out of their game. It's not like ad space is going to give anybody a competitive advantage in games. It's also not going to provoke bad sportsmanship, like face paint that disses the opposing team or whatever it was they were trying to pre-empt previously.

Why doesn't Fed ban all advertising in the arena & stipulate that no admission or cover charge be allowed, or even specify that there be no seats facing the games, or other things that encourage outsiders to look on?

Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.

I don't see any logic whatsover in extending that past the point of absurdity in tying standards for the major game implement to an ad on the fence or stadium ticket policies. There has to be a line, and the ball and player uniforms seem well within that line.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Because the ball is an implement of the game and it makes sense to have some reasonable standards on appearance to ensure at least some consistency, even if both teams use their own. Just like HS uses a white stripe football vs the non-stripe used in other levels. I don't think there was some spate of ad-filled balls out there - which would be a very poor spend of ad $ anyway, since no one in the stands could see it - but this seems like an eminently reasonable pre-emptive measure.

But look at all the exceptions they make. It's not like they don't allow a ball to be all marked up, only that the markings can't be commercially sponsored. A ball's just as marked up if it says, "Property of Podunk Bd. of Ed." as it is if it says "Budweiser". So it's not about consistency of appearance.

But you're right that it would be a poor spend of ad $ if they wanted people to see it at a distance. This is more about the possibility of a sponsor's making a donation in kind to a school -- balls marked with their logo or name -- so the kids using the equipment will appreciate them.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

as it is if it says "Budweiser". So it's not about consistency of appearance.

This is more about the possibility of a sponsor's making a donation in kind to a school -- balls marked with their logo or name -- so the kids using the equipment will appreciate them.

Most High School students don't need visual stimulation to heighten their appreciation of Budweiser (or competitors).