NHL owners approve jersey ads for 2022-23 season

[Petey Castiglione]

BOO-URNS

[-Vintage Canuck-]

23 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Personally, it's still too much of a foul to me. I can live with a single small ad on the helmets, but I feel like the jerseys are too far. Also, there's the slippery slope case which I think is legitimate.

I mean, advertisements on jerseys have become more common in North American professional sports leagues in recent years. MLS has sold jersey ad space since 2007. The WNBA has been doing it since the 2011 season. The NBA has allowed teams to sell 2.5x2.5-inch ads on its jerseys since the start of the 2017-18 season. If there was no other choice, I can live with if it looks similar to the mock-up posted.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

8 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

As long as the NHL doesn't go to something like this:

 

 

Underrated hockey mask I've ever seen in my life haha. 

[-AJ-]

14 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

I mean, advertisements on jerseys have become more common in North American professional sports leagues in recent years. MLS has sold jersey ad space since 2007. The WNBA has been doing it since the 2011 season. The NBA has allowed teams to sell 2.5x2.5-inch ads on its jerseys since the start of the 2017-18 season. If there was no other choice, I can live with if it looks similar to the mock-up posted.

If it's inevitable, the kind you posted would be the best option, but I still don't personally feel it's a good option.

[TheRocket18]

So we have Toronto, Montreal, New York and Boston and other larger market teams with a few advertisements.... and then Quilts for Arizona and Jersey

 

 

[wai_lai416]

how long till we see the european soccer jersey style lol giant advertisement replaces the team crest and the team logo gets a tiny little patch on either the left or right across from the A or C 

[SilentSam]

It’s the beginning of an awful outcome to such a cherished sport..  tarnish on a prize considered the Holy Grail of sport.

Next Ronald McDonald or the Hamburgaler will present the Stanley Cup.

nothing is sacred anymore.

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by SilentSam

[canuck73_3]

4 hours ago, AV. said:

Good to know advertisements, and not the incessant losing on the ice and frequent mismanagement of the team, is where some fans draw the line on supporting the sport.

 

Makes you wonder...

Turning a post about jersey advertisements into bitching about management.

 

Makes you wonder…

[Nuxfanabroad]

Just heard The Hockey Guy(his jersey collection has prob kept the Cats & 'Yotes afloat) helping to explain this away. Gee, the poor league/players..they got bills to pay, eh? ..Well, hopefully the Cdn teams can help out with even MORE REV sharing!? They don't tell us hoi polloi much 'bout that.but I'm sure that one's a GREAT initiative too.

 

But it's a tough economy, why stop there? Couldn't we tattoo corp logos on the foreheads of 4th liners? Could get them a touch more ice time, right? Maybe you get an EXTRA 100k (No AAV charge!) if you'll sell your forehead as a billboard?

 

Remember, it's all about being a great paying fan to prooove how much you love the game. Sorry that I've never bought a "real jersey"; & my last cheap polyester purchase was back in the late 90's.

 

On a more serious note: These clowns are making it harder & harder to take this league seriously. So their rigged, shady casino has more brightly flashing neon..well that's wonderful.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Nuxfanabroad

[grandmaster]

I believe it’s supposed to be only 3 inches by 3 inches but I’m concerned that will later change to include more. 
 

Players and owners will never be content with what they earn. It’s always more and things like this become inevitable. 
 

I miss watching live hockey with no ads on the boards and no commercial breaks. $50 would get you a couple good lower bowl seats and the concessions were all reasonable. The game seemed more wholesome back then….

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by grandmaster

[McBackup]

You're allowed to be disgruntled about the jerseys ads and the team losing, just so you're aware guys. Just because you aren't stripping the shelves of Budweiser since they sponsor the team doesn't mean you want them to lose.

[McBackup]

13 hours ago, -AJ- said:

 Also, there's the slippery slope case which I think is legitimate.

There is no slippery slope. The NHL would never put ads on the boards/on the ice/on the helmets/on the jerseys/plaster them all over the uniform like in European hockey. Thats just paranoia. 

[Attila Umbrus]

Knew this was coming...first was addys on the helmets, now it's on the jerseys, soon it will be on the socks and on the pants. It's already on the boards and on the ice and on the glass and on the jumbotron and at the front gate when you walk into the arena, it's in between whistles on your TV (I still hate subway for those stupid monkey commercials, now I stream games so I can fast forward thankfully lol)...it's not gonna stop. Everywhere you turn it's something popping up in your face to say HEY STUPID BUY MY PRODUCT!!

 

Ugh yuck, but not gonna stop unfortunately. 

[Curmudgeon]

3 hours ago, McBackup said:

There is no slippery slope. The NHL would never put ads on the boards/on the ice/on the helmets/on the jerseys/plaster them all over the uniform like in European hockey. Thats just paranoia. 

Nicely put. Change is inevitable. This causes one of two reactions: violent opposition or no reaction at all. When I was a young hockey fan, fans debated whether or not goalies should wear masks or that wearing one showed cowardice. But the game changed. I was an enthusiastic fan when there was only one player in the NHL with a helmet, and many were opposed to players wearing helmets. Same thing with face shields or visors; there were those (cough-Cherry-cough) who questioned a player's masculinity if he chose to protect his eyes because real hockey players are fearless and if they lose an ice, just get the trainer to ice it down and they're back on the ice. But the game changed. Believe it or not, in the early 60's there was debate over the use of the slap shot. Hockey purists would argue that hockey didn't have slap shots for sixty or seventy years, so it should be outlawed. But the game changed. Same thing with curved blades, which were thought to be dangerous because the shooter was never quite sure where the puck would be going and goalies were facing shots of a type they'd never seem before. But the game changed. Then there was rink board advertising, which the purists reviled but which quickly became almost invisible to the viewers focussed on the game and not the boards. But the game changed. It took a young girl getting fatally injured in a hockey game for the league to direct netting at both ends of the ice. Fans, and especially season ticket holders, were furious. But the game changed. Then came sponsorship of every imaginable aspect of the game, from the puck drop, to the face-offs, to everything that was a noun or verb. But the game changed. Now we've gone through a season with corporate logos on helmets. I have to be honest that I paid no attention to them and found them innocuous.

 

The point is that hockey, the way it is played and the way it is marketed, are constantly evolving. And still, the traditionalists throw tantrums and predict dire consequences or advocate boycotts or swear off every watching hockey again. Until the next game or the next season. With changes in hockey you have only two options: hop on the change train and enjoy the journey, or stay in the station and whine about how the game isn't the same as it used to be. Up to you.

[McBackup]

10 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:

Nicely put. Change is inevitable. This causes one of two reactions: violent opposition or no reaction at all. When I was a young hockey fan, fans debated whether or not goalies should wear masks or that wearing one showed cowardice. But the game changed. I was an enthusiastic fan when there was only one player in the NHL with a helmet, and many were opposed to players wearing helmets. Same thing with face shields or visors; there were those (cough-Cherry-cough) who questioned a player's masculinity if he chose to protect his eyes because real hockey players are fearless and if they lose an ice, just get the trainer to ice it down and they're back on the ice. But the game changed. Believe it or not, in the early 60's there was debate over the use of the slap shot. Hockey purists would argue that hockey didn't have slap shots for sixty or seventy years, so it should be outlawed. But the game changed. Same thing with curved blades, which were thought to be dangerous because the shooter was never quite sure where the puck would be going and goalies were facing shots of a type they'd never seem before. But the game changed. Then there was rink board advertising, which the purists reviled but which quickly became almost invisible to the viewers focussed on the game and not the boards. But the game changed. It took a young girl getting fatally injured in a hockey game for the league to direct netting at both ends of the ice. Fans, and especially season ticket holders, were furious. But the game changed. Then came sponsorship of every imaginable aspect of the game, from the puck drop, to the face-offs, to everything that was a noun or verb. But the game changed. Now we've gone through a season with corporate logos on helmets. I have to be honest that I paid no attention to them and found them innocuous.

 

The point is that hockey, the way it is played and the way it is marketed, are constantly evolving. And still, the traditionalists throw tantrums and predict dire consequences or advocate boycotts or swear off every watching hockey again. Until the next game or the next season. With changes in hockey you have only two options: hop on the change train and enjoy the journey, or stay in the station and whine about how the game isn't the same as it used to be. Up to you.

I don't really think its comparable.

 

This isn't a change to how the game is played, its a change to the aesthetics of it. Some people don't care, thats fine. Personally, one of the things that originally attracted me to hockey when I was a little kid was how exciting the uniforms were, with all of the vibrant colours and the giant logo on the front, compared to sports like baseball where you wore either white or grey or basketball where you just had a script instead of a logo and a uniform with minimal striping.

 

I don't think people are just "stuck in the past" or "whining" because they don't like that the hockey sweater, which has been a sanctified part of the lore of the game is now going to have a big old SCOTIABANK stamp on it.

 

I think a better analogy would be if your favourite Superhero now wore a Coca-Cola® logo on his chest and in the middle of his adventures had to stop to gulp down an ice cold Coca-Cola® and remind us of how refreshing Coca-Cola® is. Does it change the story? No, not really. But if you're a Superman fan it might be annoying to see the character with so much symbolism behind him become Coca-Cola®man.

 

 

[Dumb Nuck]

The Canucks jersey ad has just been announced:

[RU SERIOUS]

No way I'm going to buy a jersey and become a walking Bill-Board" for McDonalds!

End of story!

[canuckfromlangley]

We will be playing in the Honda division this year. Now they sell the jersey's. How long till some team just decides to sell the team name and logo. 

[Nave]

The timing is so bad for me... Wanted to get a few jerseys, but I don't want ads plastered on them.

[Googlie]

With the imminent arrival of Podkolzin,  Gazprom has approached the Canucks about sponsorship.  (Headquartered in St Petersburg, they are also trying to get broadcast rights to Canucks games for Russian viewers - they believe Podz will be a major draw in their market)

 

WIKI ....

 

(SKA St Petersburg is owned by Russian state-controlled energy giant Gazprom. The club used its immense wealth to gather almost all elite Russian KHL players under its umbrella to prepare them for the 2018 Winter Olympics )

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Googlie