Throwdowns > Closed

Somebody of Note said 12/07, 08:58 PM
Leagues and teams get plenty of revenue. The "weak sister", the NHL, rakes in almost as much dollars of revenue as the number of Viagra pills in stowe's pocket when he goes to see T-fo's mom. Even still, the extra revenue isn't a bad thing. All in all, though, it's just not worth it.

For one, it would cheapen the game. One of the best parts of sport is its matching of pure athletes against each other. These are the teams fans have grown up rooting for, and loving. Will they really want to see the Toronto CBCs against the Pittsburgh Hondas? What's next, the U.S. Olympic Ford All-Stars?

This leads into my next point. In terms of attracting new fans, will they really be willing to root for the Pepsis? Fans have already been disdainful of corporate interference in their team, so what's to say that they'd be willing to pledge their hearts to a team that a shamelessly promoting a certain product?

Also, one must consider the wills of the players. Nobody should be forced to advertise for something they don't believe in. Why would a non-smoker be forced to wear a Marlboro's logo?

You said it yourself: the stadia are already giant billboards. Let's leave the athletes out of it.

Somebody of Note said 12/07, 09:38 PM
You say things would not change, but that's absolutely wrong.

Take the Toronto Maple Leafs, for instance. What's the single biggest symbol of the organization? The Leaf logo.

Now, let's say you take out the Leaf and put in an ad for Kit Kat. Are they still the Maple Leafs? The old axiom goes that you're playing for the name on the front instead of the name on the back; would this not mean that they're playing for the Kit Kats?

Professionals get to choose which companies they endorse, and which they don't. Do you honestly believe that athletes have never turned down an endorsement? Saying that because they are professionals they will blindly sign up for any company cheapens YOUR argument. Forcing athletes to endorse a certain company is, dare I say it, unconstitutional. It's the First Amendment, Freedom of Assembly (also known as Freedom of Association).

The point still remains that fans will not want to identify with a team that's clearly smeared with corporate fingerprints. In small communities, the lifeblood that you speak of so fondly will be moot if fans refuse to come out to games and support the companies that may or may not have outsourced their jobs to China.

Somebody of Note said 12/07, 10:51 PM
Time to break out my BGM2008...

MLS Jerseys don't have huge corporate logos on the front? Have you not seen the LA Galaxy's Herbalife, Toronto FC's BMO logo, or Real Salt Lake's ubiquitous Xango? Don't forget the New York RED BULLS. With the other teams, I didn't notice any advertising, period, on the jerseys. Those who have it flaunt it.

And are you seriously proposing that a player who is forced to do something unconstitutional be equally forced to root up his family? At this point it seems like your arguing in favour of imposing the will of the owner on the livelihood of his subordinates. That's pure totalitarianism, which no sane individual (who wants to keep their individual rights) can support. He may have options, but it shouldn't come to that.

The point about the stadiums is hardly valid. When you go to a football game, are you going to a Patriots game or a game at Gillette Stadium? A Cavaliers game or a game at the Quicken Loans Arena? You go to see the team, not the stadium. And people who are victims of the downfall of the auto industry are not going to be thrilled about seeing a team that is represented by Chrysler. The teams are truly stabbing themselves.