The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
It will happen. It remains the largest untapped revenue source for teams and doesn't change anything about the game. I can't say I care if it happens either.
You've obviously never seen SEL jerseys if so you wouldn't say that. For fans it changes a lot clubs are expecting you to pay the same prize for jerseys with tons of adds they hardly do they offer clean ones and if they do, only practise ones.
Glad the NHL is different just shows you how much of a gongshow the NBA is becoming ever year.
Really hope the NHL will never go down this route but we are already seeing the start with more on ice advertisement and selling out to shady companies like the Wings did.
Basically, all the minor leagues. Doesn't mean the major leagues should start.
That's how it worked everywhere else in the world, though. First the niche sports, then the lower level soccer leagues and finally the big boys realized they were missing out on a paycheque. If the LA Sparks can land Farmers Insurance and DC United can land Volkswagon and the Edmonton Eskimos can land Scotiabank, what's stopping NHL teams with much, much stronger brand power from grabbing even bigger fish or netting as much cash as possible from any company willing to pay to leverage that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglepride
You've obviously never seen SEL jerseys if so you wouldn't say that. For fans it changes a lot clubs are expecting you to pay the same prize for jerseys with tons of adds they hardly do they offer clean ones and if they do, only practise ones.
I can think of about two billion reasons that any comparisons to the SEL are completely invalid. We're not talking about a league that's a distant second in a tiny country, the NHL is one of the 5 richest sports leagues on the planet. The NBA is even better off. To put this in a European context, the Habs and Wings are not Frolunda or Jokerit or Davos, they're Man U and Barca. The Panthers and Coyotes are Hertha Berlin and Chievo, not whatever the dreggs of the SEL are.
As a man with aesthetic standards I find the notion disgusting as a man with economic sense I get it.
Once European soccer became quite popular in America and people didn't mind the shirt sponsors, it was logical other sports leagues would follow suit. People always used to say, the fans wouldn't have it, there'd be too big a backlash. Soccer basically proved that this isn't the case. People get used to it.
That doesn't mean it's good, in fact, people should protest it. When shirt sponsors were introduced in soccer, people didn't say it would destroy the game, they said it would lead to a reckless commercialization and cheapening of the game. Few soccer fans would deny that this is what actually happened. Most English clubs adopted kit sponsorship between 1980 and 1982 and it was a major step, the first of quite a few such steps, which transformed the game from one in which Derby County can win the league to one where it's the same handful of clubs at the top year-in year-out.
It's a simple reality, increased revenue exploitation opens the gap between those who can realize more revenue and those who can't. Toronto's deal would dwarf Winnipeg's deal, the Rangers deal would be bigger than Toronto's deal. Access to US network TV would be a huge deciding factor, Western teams not called Chicago and Detroit would by default get a lot less. In fact one could argue how much money a little sponsorship patch on a shirt seen only by neglible numbers of people on Fox Sports Tennessee or Fox Sports Arizona is actually worth. Probably not as much as some hope.
Of course, it opens up another can of worms. Does it make sense for the Winter Classic to be ad-free? It's the biggest platform for exposure the league has in the US.and surely if a company forks out cash for a jersey sponsorship it would want to be seen there.
In addition, the sums that European elite soccer clubs realize are realized not by little patches but by massive logos dominating the front of the shirt. In soccer this was natural since that part of the shirt was 'empty', in hockey the team logo goes there. But why does it have to be that way? It would majorly increase revenue withou 'changing the game' if you placed the sponsors there and the team logo becomes a little badge around where the captain's patch is now.
Sometimes the aesthetic standard might just be the better guide..
This. 100% agree. I'd rather have an ad or two on the jerseys (ads that I won't even have time to notice because I' watching the actual game) than to constantly hear the commentators plugging some advertisers.
But with soccer those jersey ads essentially replace TV ad breaks. There wouldn't be a trade-off for ads if this was adopted in NA sports, it would be adding on to what's already there. The commentators would still be plugging advertisers, it's not an either-or thing in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie
I can think of about two billion reasons that any comparisons to the SEL are completely invalid. We're not talking about a league that's a distant second in a tiny country, the NHL is one of the 5 richest sports leagues on the planet.
I find this EXTREMELY difficult to believe. The NHL is by far the smallest of the four major NA sports leagues, which by your implication means that it's richer than virtually any soccer league on the planet. Hell, college football probably generates more money than the NHL does.
Last edited by CorbeauNoir: 03-10-2012 at 09:41 AM.
Not necessarily. Depends how they decide to do business. When buying a CFL jersey, you actually have to pay extra for the ad patches (there's a league ad and team ad on each jersey) if you want them. They are treated no differently than player names / numbers or commemorative patches in any league.
Although it sounds funny, it somewhat makes sense -- producing the actual patches and affixing them to the jersey costs money, and it makes your jersey "look more authentic" since it resembles what the players actually wear.
At least they give you the option of putting names / numbers on a jersey without the ad patches.
EDIT : And the picture of the Moose jersey reminded me about AHL jersey ads... I'm not even sure you could buy the Toyota patch to add on to your Moose jersey. Does anyone know? I never got mine customized. I guess the main point here would be that, customized or not, I never saw any Moose jerseys with the ad patch on it (just like how the CFL does business). Game worns, of course, would have had the patch.
I find this EXTREMELY difficult to believe. The NHL is by far the smallest of the four major NA sports leagues, which by your implication means that it's richer than virtually any soccer league on the planet. Hell, college football probably generates more money than the NHL does.
NHL generated around 2.9b in revenue last year. I know for certain for EPL had more revenue but from this I can't see any other soccer league growing a billion in revenue in four years.
I have no doubts that college football/basketball have more revenue, but in terms of professional team sport leagues the NHL is number 5.
That doesn't mean it's good, in fact, people should protest it. When shirt sponsors were introduced in soccer, people didn't say it would destroy the game, they said it would lead to a reckless commercialization and cheapening of the game. Few soccer fans would deny that this is what actually happened. Most English clubs adopted kit sponsorship between 1980 and 1982 and it was a major step, the first of quite a few such steps, which transformed the game from one in which Derby County can win the league to one where it's the same handful of clubs at the top year-in year-out.
It's a simple reality, increased revenue exploitation opens the gap between those who can realize more revenue and those who can't. Toronto's deal would dwarf Winnipeg's deal, the Rangers deal would be bigger than Toronto's deal. Access to US network TV would be a huge deciding factor, Western teams not called Chicago and Detroit would by default get a lot less. In fact one could argue how much money a little sponsorship patch on a shirt seen only by neglible numbers of people on Fox Sports Tennessee or Fox Sports Arizona is actually worth. Probably not as much as some hope.
First off, the decline of parity in England has a lot more to do with big TV money and the Bosman ruling than shirt sponsorships. In the 80's and early 90's there was still a fair amount of parity in England in spite of the sponsorships. They may have helped the problem along as more and more revenue gaps emerged, but it wasn't what got the ball rolling.
Secondly, you're forgetting about things like jersey sales and general brand integration and attachment. Emirates doesn't just benefit from people watching Arsenal, PSG and AC Milan on TV... every fan wearing a kit is wearing an ad. Posters? Emirates ads. Ads for other companies that feature Arsenal players? Emirates ads! And since they've so intimately aligned themselves with the clubs, they can count on a strong bump thanks to brand loyal supporters deciding to fly Emirates because hey man, PSG uber alles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
But with soccer those jersey ads essentially replace TV ad breaks. There wouldn't be a trade-off for ads if this was adopted in NA sports, it would be adding on to what's already there. The commentators would still be plugging advertisers, it's not an either-or thing in this case..
That's more down to the nature of soccer. There is no place to shoehorn ads in. I mean, a match between Liverpool and Newcastle on ESPN2 is going to have the same number of ads as it will on ESPN UK even though Standard Charter and Virgin Financial don't do business in the US (nor, in the former's case, the UK)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
I find this EXTREMELY difficult to believe. The NHL is by far the smallest of the four major NA sports leagues, which by your implication means that it's richer than virtually any soccer league on the planet. Hell, college football probably generates more money than the NHL does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Volcan
NHL generated around 2.9b in revenue last year. I know for certain for EPL had more revenue but from this I can't see any other soccer league growing a billion in revenue in four years.
I have no doubts that college football/basketball have more revenue, but in terms of professional team sport leagues the NHL is number 5.
$900 million is what separates the NBA from the NHL. The gap between the NBA and MLB is $3.2 billion. So you're already wrong about how far behind the NHL lags. Soccer leagues? Well, the EPL brings in revenues of ~$3.5 billion give or take the exchange rate. As Grand Volcan showed already, the rest of the big leagues lag behind for various reasons (worse top to bottom leagues, smaller market size, lack of global appeal) so can't come close to the top 5.
As for college sports... maybe. But they're not professional, and since revenue is fragmented so many ways with media deals being negotiated by individual conferences and teams and bowls, etc. it'd be incredibly difficult to piece it all together just to make the point.
First off, the decline of parity in England has a lot more to do with big TV money and the Bosman ruling than shirt sponsorships. In the 80's and early 90's there was still a fair amount of parity in England in spite of the sponsorships. They may have helped the problem along as more and more revenue gaps emerged, but it wasn't what got the ball rolling.
As I said it was a first step, but don't underestimate it. The gap between what say Man United or Liverpool could ask for a shirt sponsorship deal and what WBA or Coventry City could is massive and was amplified by the relatively little TV revenue in the 80s.
Quote:
Secondly, you're forgetting about things like jersey sales and general brand integration and attachment. Emirates doesn't just benefit from people watching Arsenal, PSG and AC Milan on TV... every fan wearing a kit is wearing an ad. Posters? Emirates ads. Ads for other companies that feature Arsenal players? Emirates ads! And since they've so intimately aligned themselves with the clubs, they can count on a strong bump thanks to brand loyal supporters deciding to fly Emirates because hey man, PSG uber alles.
It depends, there's certainly been some iconic sponsorships where there was a real perceived link between club and company (Man United and Sharp, Liverpool and Carlsberg for example) but for example I don't see it for Man United and AIG or Arsenal and the Emirates for example. That sort of connection requires a 10+ year commitment from a company which isn't that easy anymore given the intense bidding process with big clubs. Meanwhile smaller clubs often struggle to find any sponsor and settle for a local council or charity who pay a pittance in the end.
As I said it was a first step, but don't underestimate it. The gap between what say Man United or Liverpool could ask for a shirt sponsorship deal and what WBA or Coventry City could is massive and was amplified by the relatively little TV revenue in the 80s.
You're forgetting the huge revenue income from the UCL. United are always in there so that naturally means more visibility for the sponsor.
That's more down to the nature of soccer. There is no place to shoehorn ads in. I mean, a match between Liverpool and Newcastle on ESPN2 is going to have the same number of ads as it will on ESPN UK even though Standard Charter and Virgin Financial don't do business in the US (nor, in the former's case, the UK)
I get that, but the guy was saying that he doesn't get why people are complaining about it since he'd rather have jersey ads than a bombardment of ad breaks/commentator ad plugins when in the case of NA sports it wouldn't be an either-or situation. Otherwise I'd agree with him.
Quote:
$900 million is what separates the NBA from the NHL. The gap between the NBA and MLB is $3.2 billion. So you're already wrong about how far behind the NHL lags. Soccer leagues? Well, the EPL brings in revenues of ~$3.5 billion give or take the exchange rate. As Grand Volcan showed already, the rest of the big leagues lag behind for various reasons (worse top to bottom leagues, smaller market size, lack of global appeal) so can't come close to the top 5.
As for college sports... maybe. But they're not professional, and since revenue is fragmented so many ways with media deals being negotiated by individual conferences and teams and bowls, etc. it'd be incredibly difficult to piece it all together just to make the point.
Fair enough, it just sounded really far-fetched to me that the NHL would have more financial clout than any given soccer league in the world considering how much more of an international profile they have.
WNBA already does it. it was only a matter of time.
Those are just stupid. If I'm looking at those for the first time I think that team's name is the Bing, which considering some of the WNBA team names isn't that much of a stretch.
As I said it was a first step, but don't underestimate it. The gap between what say Man United or Liverpool could ask for a shirt sponsorship deal and what WBA or Coventry City could is massive and was amplified by the relatively little TV revenue in the 80s.
Yes, but the revenue gaps were still tiny. Man U was only getting £100,000 a year from that initial Sharp deal... so while it may have given them a bit of a leg up on the likes of QPR were getting from Guiness (it's impossible to find exact numbers, though the fact of that sponsorship should suggest just how different the world was then as such a small club would never be able to land such a sponsor now), was it really enough of a leg up to make a difference? Man U was still losing out to Everton every year in spite of their inferior shirt sponsorship, right up until big TV money changed everything.
Your invocation of Coventry City kind of makes my point for me... they were competitive up until the late 80's in spite of lagging way behind in sponsorship money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow
It depends, there's certainly been some iconic sponsorships where there was a real perceived link between club and company (Man United and Sharp, Liverpool and Carlsberg for example) but for example I don't see it for Man United and AIG or Arsenal and the Emirates for example. That sort of connection requires a 10+ year commitment from a company which isn't that easy anymore given the intense bidding process with big clubs. Meanwhile smaller clubs often struggle to find any sponsor and settle for a local council or charity who pay a pittance in the end.
I don't know... the Emirates deal has been around for 7 or 8 years now and also includes the name of the stadium. What's iconic is subjective, we're only talking about tapping into brand loyalty here. And here's an article about just what that means when talking about NASCAR:
Would the NHL engender that kind of fierce loyalty? Probably not. But it only has to matter to a handful to make it worth it for companies.
I also forgot to mention video games... it is impossible not to see an Emirates logo 100,000 times when playing FIFA. And that's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorbeauNoir
Fair enough, it just sounded really far-fetched to me that the NHL would have more financial clout than any given soccer league in the world considering how much more of an international profile they have.
One thing to know about soccer is that for as popular as it is, it's only recently (and reluctantly become a real big business. So American sports, which have always operated that way, had an automatic jump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Scurlock
Those are just stupid. If I'm looking at those for the first time I think that team's name is the Bing, which considering some of the WNBA team names isn't that much of a stretch.
I'd say that reflects more on you and your lack of knowledge of Microsoft's search engine than it does on the concept of jersey ads.
Yes, but the revenue gaps were still tiny. Man U was only getting £100,000 a year from that initial Sharp deal... so while it may have given them a bit of a leg up on the likes of QPR were getting from Guiness (it's impossible to find exact numbers, though the fact of that sponsorship should suggest just how different the world was then as such a small club would never be able to land such a sponsor now), was it really enough of a leg up to make a difference? Man U was still losing out to Everton every year in spite of their inferior shirt sponsorship, right up until big TV money changed everything.
Those sort of things do take some time to have an effect, it would naturally take half a decade or so before it truly affects results. I am not going to deny that the Premiership was the big game changer, but shirt sponsorship was something of the same kind - getting rid of established conventions and regulations for the purpose of better commercial exploitatin.
Quote:
Your invocation of Coventry City kind of makes my point for me... they were competitive up until the late 80's in spite of lagging way behind in sponsorship money.
Let's not get carried away, they were a relegation candidate for much of the 80s, never better than mid-table. Their FA Cup win was one of the big upsets for which the competition is famous.
Quote:
I don't know... the Emirates deal has been around for 7 or 8 years now and also includes the name of the stadium. What's iconic is subjective, we're only talking about tapping into brand loyalty here.
Yeah and I highly doubt many Arsenal fans fly Emirates just because of the deal. Nascar is a bit different because of how much the individual drivers are identified almost primarily by the big brand logo that's plastered on their cars. Football clubs are of course still primarily identified by their team colors.
Which actually brings up another aspect - sponsors affecting team colors. In North America of course the Sounders present a ridiculous case of this but there have been cases in Europe as well. Werder Bremen notably introduced orange as a secondary team color to reflect their then shirt sponsors o.tel.o's corporate colors. Imagine that in the NHL? Actually not that difficult to imagine it at all.
And like I said, it doesn't take every or even most Arsenal fans to make it worth it for Emirates. If they get 1000 people who would have taken BA to consider them, it was totally worth it in the long run.
Obviously, an NA team would never change its colour scheme 3 times in 30 years.
Some teams have trouble finding their right identity. Not all do.
Soccer teams don't change color schemes, at least not on their home jerseys, they just make slight tweaks every year. A stripe here, a larger collar there, etc. Much different than a team completely changing after 10 years of being the same.
Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 03-12-2012 at 01:30 PM.
It will most likely happen, and it'll be limited to one patch or logo of a fairly small size. And I'd be willing to bet that the first teams to jump on board with it will be the Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, and Heat.
Just like if the NHL did it...the first teams on would be Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, and Montreal.
There is zero chance Dolan would allow an advertisement on a Knick jersey.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
I'd rather have an ad or two on the jerseys (ads that I won't even have time to notice because I' watching the actual game) than to constantly hear the commentators plugging some advertisers.
