Nooooooooo!!!!!

[South Pender]

If the NBA gets on board and shows that the money is there and that it can be done without a great deal of long-term fan backlash, I think it's inevitable that the rest of the North American pro sports landscape that has still held out will eventually follow suit. And the CFL can boast that they were ahead of the curve, in North America at least.

Wow! Sure not something that should be boasted about in my opinion. Sort of like BC boasting (if it were true) that it's the first province to legalize child pornography!

I may be behind the times, out of the loop, swimming upstream--pick your metaphor--but I really hate the over-commercialization of sports. I dislike naming stadiums for big companies, the tacky billboards along the CFL sidelines (that players sometimes fall into and on which they occasionally injure themselves), seeing crests on uniforms, and on and on. For me, it reduces the enjoyment of the game and reminds me that, in the end, it's just all about money. Would it necessarily be a bad thing if the owners in the CFL and the CFL officers decided that there would be none of that (uniform crests, sideline paper/plastic billboards/stadium naming) in the CFL? I can't see that any one team would be disadvantaged--with respect to its ability to field a competitive team--if all teams were held to this. I guess the net effect would be that each team would have less money to pay players, but, at least it would be uniformly true throughout the league. Would it mean that we'd lose out on players who wouldn't come to Canada from US college programs because the salaries might be reduced by 5-10% here? Perhaps, but I think it would give us pride to be able to know that we hadn't sold out completely to the bottom line. Perhaps I'm being completely naive here; perhaps it's true that the CFL simply would disappear without all this extra corporate money. Just some Friday morning ruminations....

[Sir Purrcival]

While I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, I can't see it being done. Facilities, sports franchises and so on are expensive propositions. It has forced owners and organizations to look for all the revenue streams they can in order to remain viable. It isn't just about player salaries which in the CFL, are quite modest to begin with. However, stadiums have to be built, renovated and maintained. Operations for events have to be staffed, supplied, licensed and so on. Taxes have to be paid as well. I hate the stadium names, I hate the crests and I really hate those sideline sandwich boards. I hate the running commercials at BC Place that you are constantly being bombarded with both on the big screen and on the media panel that rings the stadium but it would seem that they are here to stay and even increase.

[sj-roc]

If the NBA gets on board and shows that the money is there and that it can be done without a great deal of long-term fan backlash, I think it's inevitable that the rest of the North American pro sports landscape that has still held out will eventually follow suit. And the CFL can boast that they were ahead of the curve, in North America at least.

Wow! Sure not something that should be boasted about in my opinion. Sort of like BC boasting (if it were true) that it's the first province to legalize child pornography!

I may be behind the times, out of the loop, swimming upstream--pick your metaphor--but I really hate the over-commercialization of sports. I dislike naming stadiums for big companies, the tacky billboards along the CFL sidelines (that players sometimes fall into and on which they occasionally injure themselves), seeing crests on uniforms, and on and on. For me, it reduces the enjoyment of the game and reminds me that, in the end, it's just all about money. Would it necessarily be a bad thing if the owners in the CFL and the CFL officers decided that there would be none of that (uniform crests, sideline paper/plastic billboards/stadium naming) in the CFL? I can't see that any one team would be disadvantaged--with respect to its ability to field a competitive team--if all teams were held to this. I guess the net effect would be that each team would have less money to pay players, but, at least it would be uniformly true throughout the league. Would it mean that we'd lose out on players who wouldn't come to Canada from US college programs because the salaries might be reduced by 5-10% here? Perhaps, but I think it would give us pride to be able to know that we hadn't sold out completely to the bottom line. Perhaps I'm being completely naive here; perhaps it's true that the CFL simply would disappear without all this extra corporate money. Just some Friday morning ruminations....

It might be just part of a larger instinct of human nature to feel nostaglia for the past. Who hasn't yearned for the "good ol' days" at one time or another?

My "ahead of the curve" comment was meant somewhat as jest. There was some sentiment expressed elsewhere in this thread that CFL detractors, who often focus their interests on what they regard as "big time" sports, would label cresting as a "bush league" move. But what will they say when this practice comes to the "big time" pro sports, which is looking more likely to be the case in the years ahead? I guess they'll just have to quit being sports fans. Someone in this thread also pointed to NHL rinkboard ads as something that was initially frowned upon a generation ago, but at which no one bats an eyelash today. To be honest I've watched a few games since the Olympics break but I don't know if I could name even ONE rinkboard advertiser right now if you offered me $1000 for it. Cresting will probably follow a similar arc. In fact we've already seen this as Sekeres and Price struggled (unsuccessfully) to recall the Lions' cresting sponsor. It's human nature to balk at change, especially change that's deemed unnecessary. Look at how people complain whenever Facebook changes the look of their interface. A month later it all blows over and it's as if it's the same interface they've used their whole lives.

IMHO we would definitely lose out on some talent if league revenues were sufficiently low; players would decide they'd be better off taking a "real job" with a more promising long-term future. The league would probably survive, but the on-field product would almost certainly be less than what it could be.

[South Pender]

If the NBA gets on board and shows that the money is there and that it can be done without a great deal of long-term fan backlash, I think it's inevitable that the rest of the North American pro sports landscape that has still held out will eventually follow suit. And the CFL can boast that they were ahead of the curve, in North America at least.

Wow! Sure not something that should be boasted about in my opinion. Sort of like BC boasting (if it were true) that it's the first province to legalize child pornography!

I may be behind the times, out of the loop, swimming upstream--pick your metaphor--but I really hate the over-commercialization of sports. I dislike naming stadiums for big companies, the tacky billboards along the CFL sidelines (that players sometimes fall into and on which they occasionally injure themselves), seeing crests on uniforms, and on and on. For me, it reduces the enjoyment of the game and reminds me that, in the end, it's just all about money. Would it necessarily be a bad thing if the owners in the CFL and the CFL officers decided that there would be none of that (uniform crests, sideline paper/plastic billboards/stadium naming) in the CFL? I can't see that any one team would be disadvantaged--with respect to its ability to field a competitive team--if all teams were held to this. I guess the net effect would be that each team would have less money to pay players, but, at least it would be uniformly true throughout the league. Would it mean that we'd lose out on players who wouldn't come to Canada from US college programs because the salaries might be reduced by 5-10% here? Perhaps, but I think it would give us pride to be able to know that we hadn't sold out completely to the bottom line. Perhaps I'm being completely naive here; perhaps it's true that the CFL simply would disappear without all this extra corporate money. Just some Friday morning ruminations....

It might be just part of a larger instinct of human nature to feel nostaglia for the past. Who hasn't yearned for the "good ol' days" at one time or another?

My "ahead of the curve" comment was meant somewhat as jest. There was some sentiment expressed elsewhere in this thread that CFL detractors, who often focus their interests on what they regard as "big time" sports, would label cresting as a "bush league" move. But what will they say when this practice comes to the "big time" pro sports, which is looking more likely to be the case in the years ahead? I guess they'll just have to quit being sports fans. Someone in this thread also pointed to NHL rinkboard ads as something that was initially frowned upon a generation ago, but at which no one bats an eyelash today. To be honest I've watched a few games since the Olympics break but I don't know if I could name even ONE rinkboard advertiser right now if you offered me $1000 for it. Cresting will probably follow a similar arc. In fact we've already seen this as Sekeres and Price struggled (unsuccessfully) to recall the Lions' cresting sponsor. It's human nature to balk at change, especially change that's deemed unnecessary. Look at how people complain whenever Facebook changes the look of their interface. A month later it all blows over and it's as if it's the same interface they've used their whole lives.

IMHO we would definitely lose out on some talent if league revenues were sufficiently low; players would decide they'd be better off taking a "real job" with a more promising long-term future. The league would probably survive, but the on-field product would almost certainly be less than what it could be.

All good points, sj-roc. To be clear, though, I'm not a guy who looks back to the "good ol' days" on a regular basis or, in general, dislikes change. And, although it may be human nature to balk at change, resisting changes that seem likely to be detrimental in the long term is IMO a horse of a different colour. My focus is on the cheapening of things that comes with excessive commercialization and greed, and the negative effects these have on what, in my opinion, is becoming more and more a somewhat trashy culture (I'm not looking for debate with that view; it's just how I see things). It's hard not to wish that earlier values that were important when some of us were growing up still resonated in today's culture, but there is strong evidence than many don't. I'm probably taking this well beyond the present issue, but the "greed is good" value that entered our culture in the 1980s (if not well before) has remained a dominant theme and has crowded out other nobler (IMO) values like integrity, authenticity, and altruism. I think there are mountains of evidence of this everywhere we turn.

Undoubtedly unlike many on this forum, I was glad that Telus's bid for naming rights to BC Place went nowhere. And I'm moved to wonder whether this kind of advertising really pays off for the advertiser. You have mentioned that you have been unaffected--at least with respect to your buying habits--by the rinkboard advertising, and I have had discussions with guys I know in the Marketing Division at the Sauder Business School that have suggested that most advertising has little or no effect on buyers' behaviour (although it adds a lot of unpleasant clutter to our lives). Most people find this extremely surprising, noting that big corporations wouldn't spend the huge amounts they do if it weren't paying off. However, I have to wonder what Telus would have gained, in terms of the bottom line, had they been given naming rights to BC Place. As I've noted, there's little empirical evidence to suggest that this would have improved their competitiveness in the marketplace. But it would have increased the "noise" in our culture, IMO, just a little, and, for some of us, diminished the pleasure of attending a game there.

As to whether those who are against the excessive commercialization of sports will just quit being sports fans, I'm sure it will have that effect on some. Like any business, pro sports will push the envelope until there is solid evidence that they have reached the tipping point and are losing fans, at which point, they will dial it back. (This is what I predict will happen with the Washington football team and the growing controversy about its nickname. Opposition will grow over time, and Dan Snyder, being the bottom-line guy that he is, will at some point realize that the name is now costing him money, and he'll change the name. This could take years, but will, I believe, eventually happen.) If a person is a strong enough fan, s/he will put up with the ever-increasing commercialization initiatives, but will enjoy the sport less than before.

[Lions4ever]

Under no circumstances I will buy jersey with advertising on it. I refuse to be a walking billboard for the advertisers.

I love you, man.

[South Pender]

Just to have some factual information, I'd like to know what was obtained by the CFL and its teams from the association with Rona, Scotiabank, and Coastal Capital Savings (and any others I've missed)--the companies whose logos I've seen from time to time on CFL uniforms. And how was the money distributed? Did a portion go to each team, with the CFL keeping the rest? How much money was involved and how much did each team get? I suppose that, if the amount was really substantial, it could be argued that this kind of commercial affiliation is necessary to keep the league afloat. But I wonder whether the total received rose to that level.

[TheLionKing]

Under no circumstances I will buy jersey with advertising on it. I refuse to be a walking billboard for the advertisers.

Well, strictly speaking a pro sports jersey already is advertising — it represents a team, which is every bit as much a part of commercial enterprise as Microsoft, Ford, Proctor & Gamble or GE (community-owned teams like the Packers, Eskimos and Roughriders are an exception, but even then the league to which they belong always enters the picture). So technically with this stance, you'd have to eschew jerseys altogether.

Having said this, are CFL jerseys that are sold to the public actually crested (aside from the game-worns which naturally would be)? Are the current Lions jerseys sold with CCS crests? I honestly don't know, but even if this were the case, you could always remove them — AFAIK it's a sewn-on patch or similar as opposed to part of the jersey fabric itself, although it could end up going this route over time.

My gunmetal jersey have the BC Lions, CFL and Reebok. Does not have the CCS crest

[DanoT]

I take the opposite view than most of the posters on this thread in that I would be disappointed if no corporations deemed it worthy of associating with the CFL. The fact that successful corporations are willing to pay $ to be associated and identified with the CFL is the best kind of endorsement you can get. The fact that corporations want CFL fans to be their customers and are willing to pay to make it happen is huge imo.

I don't look at corporate sponsorship as selling out but rather it helps stabilize the league's finances and position the league as a very viable venture especially when compared to the 1990s when corps wouldn't touch the CFL with a 10 foot pole.

[Spud387]

I take the opposite view than most of the posters on this thread in that I would be disappointed if no corporations deemed it worthy of associating with the CFL. The fact that successful corporations are willing to pay $ to be associated and identified with the CFL is the best kind of endorsement you can get. The fact that corporations want CFL fans to be their customers and are willing to pay to make it happen is huge imo.

I don't look at corporate sponsorship as selling out but rather it helps stabilize the league's finances and position the league as a very viable venture especially when compared to the 1990s when corps wouldn't touch the CFL with a 10 foot pole.

This, when you are running a relatively small league (which the CFL is compared to the major sports leagues) corporate sponsorship is important.

The issue I have is if NHL & NBA for example decide to add sponsorship. At that point it is a money grab, simple as that and I won't support it. If those leagues get into hard times and need to do sponsorship, they need to address how much they pay people before going to the sponsorship route.

[sj-roc]

All good points, sj-roc. To be clear, though, I'm not a guy who looks back to the "good ol' days" on a regular basis or, in general, dislikes change. And, although it may be human nature to balk at change, resisting changes that seem likely to be detrimental in the long term is IMO a horse of a different colour. My focus is on the cheapening of things that comes with excessive commercialization and greed, and the negative effects these have on what, in my opinion, is becoming more and more a somewhat trashy culture (I'm not looking for debate with that view; it's just how I see things). It's hard not to wish that earlier values that were important when some of us were growing up still resonated in today's culture, but there is strong evidence than many don't. I'm probably taking this well beyond the present issue, but the "greed is good" value that entered our culture in the 1980s (if not well before) has remained a dominant theme and has crowded out other nobler (IMO) values like integrity, authenticity, and altruism. I think there are mountains of evidence of this everywhere we turn.

I agree with some of your points here, and to be honest I'm not even all that crazy about the specific concept of cresting. I wouldn't mourn it if it went away. But this "cheapening of things" and "excessive commercialization" as you put it, neither of which I care all that much for either, has been going on in various degrees pretty much as long as I can remember. I tired long ago of complaining about it, simply because it never accomplishes anything to reverse it. I'm resigned that we can't really control it. We can only control our reaction to it. So basically somewhere along the way I came to the view that I wasn't going to let external forces have so much control over my emotions. Life is only so long; I'd rather focus on the things that enhance it, not waste time and energy getting worked up over little things that might detract from it. I'm not trying to be dismissive or condescending toward your POV — as I said, I actually agree with much of it — but I'm tired of complaining; I'd rather just watch the game and try not to let myself get distracted with all the embellishments.

Undoubtedly unlike many on this forum, I was glad that Telus's bid for naming rights to BC Place went nowhere. And I'm moved to wonder whether this kind of advertising really pays off for the advertiser. You have mentioned that you have been unaffected--at least with respect to your buying habits--by the rinkboard advertising, and I have had discussions with guys I know in the Marketing Division at the Sauder Business School that have suggested that most advertising has little or no effect on buyers' behaviour (although it adds a lot of unpleasant clutter to our lives). Most people find this extremely surprising, noting that big corporations wouldn't spend the huge amounts they do if it weren't paying off. However, I have to wonder what Telus would have gained, in terms of the bottom line, had they been given naming rights to BC Place. As I've noted, there's little empirical evidence to suggest that this would have improved their competitiveness in the marketplace. But it would have increased the "noise" in our culture, IMO, just a little, and, for some of us, diminished the pleasure of attending a game there.

Yeah, I didn't mourn the Telus bid fail, either; in fact at the time I believe I mentioned here that "it'll always be BCP to me" (or words to that effect). Interesting that you brought up the views of marketing experts. I wasn't trying to claim any moral superiority in my previous comments about not recalling rinkboard ads; quite the contrary — I'd suspected I was far from being alone on this, and the marketing discussions you cite seem to support this notion.

As to whether those who are against the excessive commercialization of sports will just quit being sports fans, I'm sure it will have that effect on some. Like any business, pro sports will push the envelope until there is solid evidence that they have reached the tipping point and are losing fans, at which point, they will dial it back. (This is what I predict will happen with the Washington football team and the growing controversy about its nickname. Opposition will grow over time, and Dan Snyder, being the bottom-line guy that he is, will at some point realize that the name is now costing him money, and he'll change the name. This could take years, but will, I believe, eventually happen.) If a person is a strong enough fan, s/he will put up with the ever-increasing commercialization initiatives, but will enjoy the sport less than before.

Maybe there will be a backlash someday, we'll have to wait and see. We might not be around for it. Professional sports culture as we know it today is a relatively new thing to humankind. We as individuals might feel like "it's always been around" and that it's a deeply ingrained part of our society but really, we've only had it for what, 100 years or so, whereas our own human existence goes back a LOT farther than that. Hundreds of years from now, it could become completely extinct as folks find other ways to fill their leisure hours and people will look back on it the way we look back today at pet rocks — "Wow, people were REALLY into that kind of stuff back then?"

Pro sports can be a peculiar thing in some ways. When we partake in works of fiction, whether it's a book, a movie, a tv show, professional wrestling ( ), we often adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for the sake of enjoying the narrative of the work. With sports, I believe there's a similar force at work that I like to refer to as "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt the existence of this phenomenon, just listen to almost any conversation between fans of different teams. Heck, it even happens between fans of the same team. Fans argue all the time over various minutiae of sports, who's the better QB, who's the better goalie, who's the better pitcher and selectively cite whatever facts support their views while ignoring those that don't.

When we're confronted with things like cresting, it exposes something unpleasant. It reminds us of the fact that we're engaging in willful irrationality. And THIS is what we truly find unsettling. It reminds us that we're only "cheering for laundry", a remark famously attributed to Jerry Seinfeld.

[video][/video]

Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. Because the players are always changing, the team can move to another city; you're actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it, you know what I mean? You are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player, but if he goes to another team they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt; they HATE him now: "BOOOOOOOO!!!!! Different shirt?!?!! Boooooooo."

[sj-roc]

Just to have some factual information, I'd like to know what was obtained by the CFL and its teams from the association with Rona, Scotiabank, and Coastal Capital Savings (and any others I've missed)--the companies whose logos I've seen from time to time on CFL uniforms. And how was the money distributed? Did a portion go to each team, with the CFL keeping the rest? How much money was involved and how much did each team get? I suppose that, if the amount was really substantial, it could be argued that this kind of commercial affiliation is necessary to keep the league afloat. But I wonder whether the total received rose to that level.

On page 3 of this thread, David posted some quotes from a Province article on this (you can't miss it, it's in bold orange italic font). If I understand it correctly, the Lions were getting something like $100k/year from the Rona/Scotiabank cresting, while the CCS agreement is speculated to be adding $500k in total to the Lions' bottom line for the full three years of its duration.

[Hambone]

Just to have some factual information, I'd like to know what was obtained by the CFL and its teams from the association with Rona, Scotiabank, and Coastal Capital Savings (and any others I've missed)--the companies whose logos I've seen from time to time on CFL uniforms. And how was the money distributed? Did a portion go to each team, with the CFL keeping the rest? How much money was involved and how much did each team get? I suppose that, if the amount was really substantial, it could be argued that this kind of commercial affiliation is necessary to keep the league afloat. But I wonder whether the total received rose to that level.

Well put it this way when looking at the 2012 financial reports from the community owned teams one finds the following when it comes to sponsorships:

Riders - $4.985 Million - 15% of all revenues
Eskimos - $3.597 million - 19% of all revenues
Bombers - $3.039 million - 18% of all revenues

These numbers do not include the CFL disbursements part of which would include teams' share of TV revenues and league negotiated sponsorships. Those ranged around $2.1 million per club.

Suffice it to say those annoying (in some eyes) little patches and sideline boards help contribute significant coin into the pockets of each club.

[sj-roc]

Under no circumstances I will buy jersey with advertising on it. I refuse to be a walking billboard for the advertisers.

Well, strictly speaking a pro sports jersey already is advertising — it represents a team, which is every bit as much a part of commercial enterprise as Microsoft, Ford, Proctor & Gamble or GE (community-owned teams like the Packers, Eskimos and Roughriders are an exception, but even then the league to which they belong always enters the picture). So technically with this stance, you'd have to eschew jerseys altogether.

Having said this, are CFL jerseys that are sold to the public actually crested (aside from the game-worns which naturally would be)? Are the current Lions jerseys sold with CCS crests? I honestly don't know, but even if this were the case, you could always remove them — AFAIK it's a sewn-on patch or similar as opposed to part of the jersey fabric itself, although it could end up going this route over time.

My gunmetal jersey have the BC Lions, CFL and Reebok. Does not have the CCS crest

You're right, I thought about it some more after that post and realised this is the case. I'd forgotten about this, but now I recall that I met up with David at a game last season and good-naturedly ribbed on the new jersey he had on him. "Hey, you sure that's not a cheap knockoff... doesn't look like an authentic jersey to me, there's no CCS crest! But don't sweat it, I know a guy who can sew one on for you — super cheap, too!"

From a broader POV, this could be considered an example of the Willing Suspension of Rationality I mentioned in another post above. I'm not trying to single you out, TLK, as I'm sure there are millions of sports fans who would agree with you in "refus[ing] to be a walking billboard for the advertisers", but there are THREE advertisers that do appear on that gunmetal jersey. The jersey itself already is advertising. The real concern is whether you happen to like the advertiser.

I wonder if people would actually refuse to buy game-worns at the year-end locker room sale that would otherwise stoke their interest if not for the presence of sponsors' crests.

[South Pender]

Just to have some factual information, I'd like to know what was obtained by the CFL and its teams from the association with Rona, Scotiabank, and Coastal Capital Savings (and any others I've missed)--the companies whose logos I've seen from time to time on CFL uniforms. And how was the money distributed? Did a portion go to each team, with the CFL keeping the rest? How much money was involved and how much did each team get? I suppose that, if the amount was really substantial, it could be argued that this kind of commercial affiliation is necessary to keep the league afloat. But I wonder whether the total received rose to that level.

Well put it this way when looking at the 2012 financial reports from the community owned teams one finds the following when it comes to sponsorships:

Riders - $4.985 Million - 15% of all revenues
Eskimos - $3.597 million - 19% of all revenues
Bombers - $3.039 million - 18% of all revenues

These numbers do not include the CFL disbursements part of which would include teams' share of TV revenues and league negotiated sponsorships. Those ranged around $2.1 million per club.

Suffice it to say those annoying (in some eyes) little patches and sideline boards help contribute significant coin into the pockets of each club.

Thanks, Hambone; that's good information to have. After looking at the numbers, I'm experiencing a little confusion, however, about the 'proportion of revenues' part of it. If the sponsorship money received by the Riders, as one example, is $4.985M, and this is 15% of all team revenues, this means that team revenues run to about $33M. And yet the team pays its players the salary-cap of $4.4M, which would be about 13% of team revenues. As you know, most pro sports share close to 50% of team revenues with the players in the form of salary, and we know that the CFL players are negotiating for 56% (which they probably won't get). Still, if they were to settle for 50% of team revenues, this would mean something like a 300% increase in players' salaries, wouldn't it? Even if we use the lowest of the three values you present (Bombers), team revenues would seem to be close to $17M, leaving their salary portion at close to one-quarter of team revenues, and a 50% share with the club would about double the salaries for their players. So, I guess I'm missing something with these numbers. You can probably explain the seeming discrepancy.

[South Pender]

With sports, I believe there's a similar force at work that I like to refer to as "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt the existence of this phenomenon, just listen to almost any conversation between fans of different teams. Heck, it even happens between fans of the same team. Fans argue all the time over various minutiae of sports, who's the better QB, who's the better goalie, who's the better pitcher and selectively cite whatever facts support their views while ignoring those that don't.

I think that the more salient cognitive/emotional adjustment among fans of pro sports is the "Willing Suspension of a Belief in a Just World." You know, thuggish clods making $2M a year as enforcers on a pro hockey team, while the scientist with 12 years of post-secondary education working 70 hours a week on cancer research gets a measly (in comparison) $150K. This particular mental adjustment might be a subset of your "Willing Suspension of Rationality," but it's by far the most salient part for me. I lost all interest in the NHL after the last strike and am hoping this phenomenon doesn't sap my interest in football. Time will tell....

Love the Seinfeld take on this!