↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Pistons will “most probably” put ads on their jerseys

Vince Ellis of the Detroit Free Press:

Palace Sports & Entertainment president Dennis Mannion said Detroit Pistons jerseys “most probably” will have small sponsorship patches in the future.

The NBA signaled last month that — pending formal league approval — it will allow small patches on the upper left part of jerseys.

“The ilk of sponsor that you could attract is typically very big consumer marketers, and they help you with your brand,” Mannion said. “So I think we are doing an OK job here in the Detroit metro area with the Pistons brand, (but) there are sponsors out there that can take you to a whole new level and other markets, and that’s exciting.”

I don’t like the idea of ads on jerseys, but it’s not that big a deal to me. More importantly, who am I to object how one private business deals legally with another private business? If the Pistons believe they can make more money by selling jersey space – and that’s not totally guaranteed, because jersey sales might drop – go for it.

26 Comments

  • Aug 8, 201211:55 am
    by Desolation Row

    Reply

    Gross.

  • Aug 8, 201212:05 pm
    by Scott86Free

    Reply

    I didn’t realize the NBA was trying to be NASCAR.

  • Aug 8, 201212:15 pm
    by Scott Free

    Reply

    Would the Jerseys that they sell also be emblazoned by territorial corporate p*ssings?

  • Aug 8, 201212:18 pm
    by Tony J

    Reply

    Can someone explain to me why can’t they just wear the ads on the jerseys but sell them without the ads?

    • Aug 8, 20122:18 pm
      by Patrick Hayes

      Reply

      Maybe they’ll be able to, I guess it will just depend on the contract with the advertiser. I assume that a selling point, and something that would allow them to charge significantly more for ads, would be to tell potential sponsors that the ads will not only be on the game jerseys, but on the replicas sold to the public as well. But I haven’t come across any details from the NBA yet stipulating how these ad deals will be structured and what they will include.

      • Aug 9, 20122:13 pm
        by Samuel Small

        Reply

        All good points fellas, But from a business standpoint, there are two reasons why it may be a problem. 1) the NBA already shares the revenue with the Players. Now adding a third entity really takes away the licensing money from everybody. If a jersey cost $80.00, Say its (for argument sake) 50/50. $40 for the NBA/$40 for the player. Now add A third party and it goes to say 40/40/20. We looking at $32/$32/$18. Multiple $8 times thousands of jerseys and thats a lot of money. Nobody may want to give that up. The second issue is a bit touchy, We all like the Pistons, but You may be a dodge man, while i am a ford man, Or You drink Sprite, while I drink Pepsi. I may not buy the jersey which means lost revenue where we would all be a Greg Monroe Jersey because we all like Greg Monroe. We all like a time, but have different likes with corporate America.

        • Aug 9, 20124:54 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          What third party is getting a part of the jersey sales? Whoever is hypothetically advertising is paying to put their name on the jerseys, not taking a cut. So if the jersey costs $80, they maybe pay an additional $10 to have their name on it. The buyer pays $80 but the players and NBA each get $45.

  • Aug 8, 201212:33 pm
    by pksmid

    Reply

    gross indeed.

    Also what kind of a sentiment is “More importantly, who am I to object how one private business deals legally with another private business?” You run a blog about how one private business deals with other private businesses and its consumers. If you don’t think it is your place to object then why do you do this?

  • Aug 8, 20121:18 pm
    by labatts

    Reply

    I, for one, think that they should partner up with Ford.  Wouldn’t that be nice?  The Ford logo on the Piston’s jersey?

  • Aug 8, 20121:18 pm
    by Brendon Crew

    Reply

    Honestly, I don’t think this should be a big deal for right now, if they get a small sponsor on there jersey, so what? The NBA isn’t a fashion show, it shouldn’t matter what their wearing as long as the players can play at their peak. It might not look the best, but i watch soccer with no problem about their jerseys and a small patch is much different than the whole jersey.

  • Aug 8, 20121:46 pm
    by bugsygod

    Reply

    The extra money would not come from selling more jerseys.  The sponsor just pays a fee to have there logo on the jersey, just like a billboard sign that you see in the arenas.  I dont like the idea, as this would like those euro jerseys.  However this is a business and if this is what the NBA wants, not much you can do about it.  I say a local sponsor thou, Ford, GM, QuickenLoans, Compuware, etc.

    • Aug 9, 20121:08 am
      by Daye and Knight

      Reply

      Hell no to QuickenLoans. No disrespect to the company and I appreciate what Gilbert is doing for downtown Detroit, but Gilbert owns the Cavilers so let them rep his company

  • Aug 8, 20122:49 pm
    by Otis

    Reply

    I don’t like this, but I’d have to see them to make a real judgment. I’m guessing they’ll be careful not to make it stick out like a sore thumb. Much more important to put a good team on the court, then worry about what they’re wearing.
     
    But speaking of this affecting jersey sales, you can’t be serious… right? I mean, this team i virtually devoid of star power. They’ve got to rank near dead last in jersey sales. Even the small handful of teams that are actually worse than the Pistons almost all have at least one player more exciting than our entire roster combined.

  • Aug 8, 20124:13 pm
    by Oracle

    Reply

    I’m all for it.  If they can make more money just off of the team wearing a small logo, and that money allows them to sign a more expensive player and pay the luxery tax, or lower ticket prices, why the heck not?

  • Aug 8, 20126:15 pm
    by Siddy

    Reply

    Uniforms are are sacrosanct.   Owners are tools who buy a team and then flip it while contributing zero.  They shouldn’t be fuckin with the uniforms.

  • Aug 8, 20126:34 pm
    by Haan

    Reply

    What a shame the NBA feels compelled to go down the path taken by European soccer teams.  Sad and unnecessary.

    • Aug 8, 20126:49 pm
      by KaBa

      Reply

      Dear Haan whats so sad about that? Especially in the land of the commercials?

  • Aug 8, 20127:29 pm
    by Haan

    Reply

    My deepest emotional connections with sports go back to being a kid, when “Cigar, Cigarette, Tiparillo?” seemed like a mere puzzling addition to Ernie’s idyllic narrative.  As an adult, I came to understand the commercial nature of professional sports, but still perceived the field of play itself as a sacred preserve, distinct from the rest of the world, even the harsh realities of sports away from the action.  With every fresh intrusion into the game itself, in the form of ever progressing commercial celebrations of a home run of a pitching change, for instance, the childish illustion of a realm governed by rules and aspirations unique to itself dispelled.  So there’s a bit of sadness at the reminder of my own naivite, of a bit less overtly commercial time in sports, along with the sense that if owners’ retained some respect (even if only cynically based) of the fans’ longing for a time for paradise (as described by Bart Giamatti) this additional step to featuring $$ on the court of play could have been avoided.

  • [...] Speaking of being motivated by money, the Pistons confirmed they are likely to put ads on jerseys as soon as they work out a deal. •  If you were watching Team USA today and thought Aussie Joe [...]

  • [...] Speaking of being motivated by money, the Pistons confirmed they are likely to put ads on jerseys as soon as they work out a deal. •  If you were watching Team USA today and thought Aussie Joe [...]

  • Aug 9, 201211:27 am
    by Keith

    Reply

    I really don’t see the problem. For one, the NBA has already said they must be small patches in a specific place. How often are you really going to be looking at it rather than following the ball or movement of a defender? There is nothing inherently sacred about a uniform or even team. Owners can choose to run with low salaries just to profit if they want, and they can alter uniform logos and colors every 3 years. Maybe each person can feel reviled by their team becoming commercialized, but those people must have just been fooling themselves prior. Teams are always selling themselves or selling something else – no one complains about naming rights on arenas.
    In the end, the Pistons are about playing basketball, not the logo, the name on the back, or any sponsorship in the corner. Sponsorship like this doesn’t impact the game they play, and that’s all that matters to me.

    • Aug 9, 20123:49 pm
      by Crispus

      Reply

      I complain about naming rights on arenas. It’s very fortunate that the Pistons get to keep the Palace name – wouldn’t you be chagrined if they renamed it “Geico Fieldhouse” tomorrow? Remember the weird juggling they did in San Francisco?

      I still feel awkward when they are naming off the college bowl games, especially when it makes a pun.

  • Aug 9, 201212:03 pm
    by Jim

    Reply

    Please don’t go all hillbilly neckcar on us Pistons, ugh..   I will def not be purchasing any jersey’s with your “patches” – don’t do it!!

  • Aug 9, 20123:48 pm
    by Quin

    Reply

    I like it.  It’s like a scarlet letter.  Basically it tells the players, “until you can put butts in the seats by winning, you have to wear this stupid patch on your back, so we can make money” lol.

  • Aug 9, 20123:49 pm
    by Quin

    Reply

    Don’t steal that in a future article, btw, lol.

  • Aug 9, 20127:09 pm
    by Haan

    Reply

    Sentimentality aside, won’t this further contribute to our competitive disavantage?  It’s possible for a league to pool income from select sources and distribute it evenly to teams. As I understand it, that’s not what would happen here.  Instead, each team would recruit a sponsor, with the Knicks likely to pull in much more  money than the Pistons.  It’d be one thing if it could help the Pistons improve competitively; if I’m right, the opposite would be the case.  I understand there are restrictions on spending, but the teams with the greatest resources tend to find creative ways to put those to good use.  By contrast, the Pistons gave up a 1st round pick to gain financial flexibility a year early in part because of present current financial pressures (if I’m remembering a point made by Dan correctly).  The disparity of rich and poor’s about to get worse.  So neither the sentimental nor the just-win-baby Pistons fan should be celebrating this development.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here