After an overwhelming 28-2 vote among the owners, the NBA has announced that starting in the 2017-18 season, teams will be permitted to sell a 2.5 inch by 2.5 inch patch on their jerseys to corporations, who may in turn use that space to advertise as they wish. The decision was immediately met with much animosity amongst fans:
"Doesn't the NBA make enough money already?"
"Can't we leave anything pure without it getting infected by greedy corporations?"
"How long before they start putting ads on the courts? Or start calling themselves the New York Toyotas?"
"Does this mean they'll have enough money to end those 15-minute halftimes full of commercials?"
"It'll make the jerseys look awful!"
All valid -- to an extent.
Let me ask you something: what did you think of the NBA's jerseys for the All-Star Game this year in Toronto?
"Doesn't the NBA make enough money already?"
"Can't we leave anything pure without it getting infected by greedy corporations?"
"How long before they start putting ads on the courts? Or start calling themselves the New York Toyotas?"
"Does this mean they'll have enough money to end those 15-minute halftimes full of commercials?"
"It'll make the jerseys look awful!"
All valid -- to an extent.
Let me ask you something: what did you think of the NBA's jerseys for the All-Star Game this year in Toronto?
 |  |
Not bad, right? And here's how they looked on the players during the real game:
But did you notice...
 |  |
Fine, maybe a few of you saw the little Kia or Adidas logos for those two pictures. But could you seriously have seen it from here?
You probably have to look hard just to even see my red circles.
And yes, the size of the logos you see here are the exact same size that you will see a couple years from now. The thing is, I don't recall anyone being upset over these All-Star jerseys. True, this is just for one game a year while this new ruling is indefinite, but I think the question still remains: how does this negatively impact you, as a fan? You can hardly notice.
Have a look at this TV view here (yes, it's HD):
And yes, the size of the logos you see here are the exact same size that you will see a couple years from now. The thing is, I don't recall anyone being upset over these All-Star jerseys. True, this is just for one game a year while this new ruling is indefinite, but I think the question still remains: how does this negatively impact you, as a fan? You can hardly notice.
Have a look at this TV view here (yes, it's HD):
Now, you do know that these jerseys have ads, and maybe you're trying to find them now that you're thinking about it. But how about trying to find these:
Mountain Dew. Gatorade. State Farm. Kia. The NBA is even advertising their own app here (next to State Farm, on the basket). And to the guy asking "How long until they put ads on the court?", well look right under the Mountain Dew sign, and you'll find a nice big ad for the Swiss watch company, Tissot. I'm pretty sure that's a little bigger than 2.5 inches, by the way (for reference, the 6′3″ Stephen Curry is standing right in front of it).
So no, I do not think 2.5 by 2.5 inch logos on jerseys will be ruining anyone's viewing experience, and I don't think that it makes the jerseys look bad. In my opinion, there is a degree of hypocrisy associated with anybody who rips the NBA over a couple of inches, yet glances over that Tissot sign, or anything on the jumbotron here:
So no, I do not think 2.5 by 2.5 inch logos on jerseys will be ruining anyone's viewing experience, and I don't think that it makes the jerseys look bad. In my opinion, there is a degree of hypocrisy associated with anybody who rips the NBA over a couple of inches, yet glances over that Tissot sign, or anything on the jumbotron here:
To respond to a couple other complaints:
- The NBA has said that jerseys bought by fans of a particular player (ex: LeBron James) will not have any corporate logos or advertisements on them.
- Only half of the ad revenue goes to the league; the other half goes to the owner of that team, which then gets redistributed amongst the team's players, as per league rules. The NBA's CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) has long been the gold standard in professional sports of fair and equitable distribution of money amongst the league, owners, staff, and players.
However, with all of that being said (and shown), that does not mean that I fully approve of what the NBA is doing here. The question "Does this mean they'll have enough money to end those 15-minute halftimes full of commercials?" still has validity to me. The league has not announced any plan to cut back on commercial time as part of this new revenue.
Answer me this: what makes stuff like this acceptable?
- The NBA has said that jerseys bought by fans of a particular player (ex: LeBron James) will not have any corporate logos or advertisements on them.
- Only half of the ad revenue goes to the league; the other half goes to the owner of that team, which then gets redistributed amongst the team's players, as per league rules. The NBA's CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) has long been the gold standard in professional sports of fair and equitable distribution of money amongst the league, owners, staff, and players.
However, with all of that being said (and shown), that does not mean that I fully approve of what the NBA is doing here. The question "Does this mean they'll have enough money to end those 15-minute halftimes full of commercials?" still has validity to me. The league has not announced any plan to cut back on commercial time as part of this new revenue.
Answer me this: what makes stuff like this acceptable?
 |  |  |
In the WNBA's case, it's the simple reality that the league needs the money. But in soccer's case, it's the fact that there are no commercial timeouts: 45 minutes (one half) of non-stop action at a time.
Thus by this same principle, the NBA should now be able to cut down on TV timeouts. Right? Right?!
And while I personally would rather watch basketball over soccer 99 times out of 100 (the "one" being the World Cup), don't think that the NBA already flows like soccer does. Quite the contrary: the NBA has automatic timeouts at the 6-minute and 3-minute mark of the first and third quarters, and at the 9, 6, and 3-minute marks of the second and fourth quarters. Since basketball quarters are only 12 minutes long, this means that you will only be able to have a maximum of three minutes of uninterrupted basketball, or one-fifteenth (1/15) that of soccer.
There is no doubt that basketball games already last too long, even though there is only just 48 minutes of actual gameplay. Hacking, or intentionally fouling a poor free throw shooter on the opposing team rather than letting them play offense, has come under fire for this very reason. While an admired tactic among basketball purists such as myself, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who answers "What's your favorite part of a basketball game?" with "Watching DeAndre Jordan brick two free throws". Even something as simple as replay review -- done merely to get the call correct -- now has all sorts of restrictions on when it can be used over fears of delaying the game: sometimes referees even declare a jump ball when they don't know who touched the ball last before it went out of bounds, when a simple trip to the monitor would have given the right team possession.
In short, you know there's a problem when a featured playoff game is ending at 2 A.M. on the East Coast. Something needs to get done, and the simplest, best, most popular -- and now most practical -- solution would be to reduce the amount of commercial timeouts, something that should definitely be possible now due to these new advertisements on jerseys.
To conclude, I do not think that it is fair to be so black-and-white on this issue of ads on jerseys. Anybody arguing completely against the league's ruling needs to understand firstly that it's a business, and secondly that the logos will be hardly noticeable, especially when compared to other ads you see in stadiums. On the other hand, however, anybody giving the opposite hard-line stance -- that these ads are completely acceptable -- needs to be enlightened on the issues that this newfound revenue can solve, and how it can improve the average fan's viewing experience.
Thus by this same principle, the NBA should now be able to cut down on TV timeouts. Right? Right?!
And while I personally would rather watch basketball over soccer 99 times out of 100 (the "one" being the World Cup), don't think that the NBA already flows like soccer does. Quite the contrary: the NBA has automatic timeouts at the 6-minute and 3-minute mark of the first and third quarters, and at the 9, 6, and 3-minute marks of the second and fourth quarters. Since basketball quarters are only 12 minutes long, this means that you will only be able to have a maximum of three minutes of uninterrupted basketball, or one-fifteenth (1/15) that of soccer.
There is no doubt that basketball games already last too long, even though there is only just 48 minutes of actual gameplay. Hacking, or intentionally fouling a poor free throw shooter on the opposing team rather than letting them play offense, has come under fire for this very reason. While an admired tactic among basketball purists such as myself, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who answers "What's your favorite part of a basketball game?" with "Watching DeAndre Jordan brick two free throws". Even something as simple as replay review -- done merely to get the call correct -- now has all sorts of restrictions on when it can be used over fears of delaying the game: sometimes referees even declare a jump ball when they don't know who touched the ball last before it went out of bounds, when a simple trip to the monitor would have given the right team possession.
In short, you know there's a problem when a featured playoff game is ending at 2 A.M. on the East Coast. Something needs to get done, and the simplest, best, most popular -- and now most practical -- solution would be to reduce the amount of commercial timeouts, something that should definitely be possible now due to these new advertisements on jerseys.
To conclude, I do not think that it is fair to be so black-and-white on this issue of ads on jerseys. Anybody arguing completely against the league's ruling needs to understand firstly that it's a business, and secondly that the logos will be hardly noticeable, especially when compared to other ads you see in stadiums. On the other hand, however, anybody giving the opposite hard-line stance -- that these ads are completely acceptable -- needs to be enlightened on the issues that this newfound revenue can solve, and how it can improve the average fan's viewing experience.
RSS Feed