Columnists
The $100 million experiment
Did you see where the NBA is undertaking a three-year “experiment” to allow teams to sell a sponsorship spot on the team jersey? It’s just a tiny oval patch on the left-hand side above the heart, legible if you’re a courtside fan with a telescope, or a home fan with an 84-inch, ultra-high-definition television. But still, it’s for sale. The league estimates the three-year program will raise $100 milllion a year. That’s almost chump change when you consider it’s the estimated aggregate of the revenue to be derived by all 30 NBA teams.
The announcement comes a year or so after the NBA garnered a $1-billion, eight-year deal with Nike to be the official supplier of Nike-logoed uniforms to the whole of the NBA. Again, when you divide it by eight, and then by 30, it doesn’t sound like a heck of a lot either.
The poster child for shirt sponsorships is the English soccer team Manchester United. Chevrolet pays the team more than $80 million a year, for seven years, to plaster a much larger logo all over the front of its jersey. This “all in” kind of sponsorship bet can have its downside when one considers the team’s middling performance this season. It’s almost as if the car company and the team are pleading with fans to “find new roads”—elsewhere.
But enough mathematical dribbling. To paraphrase C.D. Howe, what’s a billion bucks? The point that interests me is not the size of the dollars but the appropriateness of the sponsorship matchups.
First of all, you’d look for a team name with some resonance. Would you rush out to sponsor the Utah Jazz (formerly from New Orleans), because Utah isn’t the first place that springs to mind to associate with improvisational music? Or the Los Angeles Lakers (formerly from Minneapolis), who don’t seem to be anywhere near a lake? Or the Memphis Grizzlies (formerly from Vancouver), which is hardly prime grizzly-bear-country? Ah, yes, but the franchises have rich and storied histories, blah blah blah.
There are, however, a few natural fits. The Detroit Pistons could readily find an automotive industry sponsor. The Milwaukee Bucks and the Minnesota Timberwolves could find huntin’ and fishin’ industry sponsors. The Orlando Magic are practically a walking advertisement for Walt Disney. The Boston Celtics could make a compelling case for Irish Spring soap. The Washington Wizards could probably strike a deal with the publisher of the Harry Potter books. The Charlotte Hornets could hook up with a maker of wasp repellent. And so on.
Now that it’s safe—with game seven in the bag—to introduce the Toronto Raptors into the conversation, rapper and official team ambassador Drake could presumably fork over some pop machine change of his own to rent the sponsorship patch. As could one of the companies for which he is a pitchman such as that pop machine staple, Sprite. Even the Drake Hotel—with its already famous Wellington presence and its lesser known Toronto branch’s association with Drake himself— would not be an entirely off-the-wall suggestion. And if none of those opportunities pan out, a company that supplied aftermarket parts for the dromaeosaurid dinosaur, after which the team is named, would fit the bill. I reject the idea that the manufacturer of an expectorant (to minimize the risk of choking) would be an appropriate sponsor.
Some teams could attract sponsors because of their winning ways. What corporate patron would not give its eyeteeth to be associated with current NBA champions, the Golden State Warriors, led by league MVP Steph Curry? Or the Cleveland Cavaliers, led by former MVP LeBron James as he tries to bring a title to his championship- deprived home city? And perhaps on a lark, a company with a little extra cash and an against-thegrain attitude would sponsor one of the “loveable loser” franchises like the New York Knicks or the Philadelphia 76ers.
That still leaves a whole swath of unaffiliated teams to align themselves with natural sponsors like the makers of odour-killing insoles, deodorants, floor polishing creams, tall men’s clothes, muscle pain creams and extra strong laundry detergents—not to mention tattoo parlours and tattoo removal clinics.
If the jersey patch trial sponsorship works out, who knows what positional opportunity will be sold off next?
Will it be the full Manchester United-style shirtfront? Or headbands and sweatcuffs? Socks? Rear ends? As George Bernard Shaw once remarked, the principle has been established: after that, it’s all just haggling about the price.
Actually, I wonder why, with all this money being thrown around so casually, ordinary consumers still pay apparel companies for the right to sport their logos. I would accept a paltry $20,000 a year from Sears to wear clothes sporting the company’s logo. And between you and me, that price is negotiable. Or perhaps, if I’m really mercenary about it, I’ll threaten to wear Tommy Hilfiger unless the company wants to pay me not to wear it. There’s an idea: I could lend my name to a new line of Hilfiger ultra-fashionable “not worn by” clothes. That would be an experiment worth writing about.
Comments (0)