Football Partnerships

By Marina Hyde

“For potential owner,” reads a sports headline this week, “a background check worthy of the KGB.” Not altogether shockingly, this isn’t a reference to the Premier League’s “fit and proper person” test, nor indeed the Football League’s even ropier equivalent thereof. The article appears in the New York Times, and concerns the NBA’s deliberations over whether or not to pop its Russian oligarch cherry.

Read the rest of the article

By Alex Kotler

The American sports establishment has finally, and in no uncertain terms, acknowledged - and more importantly, emulated - one of football’s most prominent commercial strategies: Shirt Sponsorship.

Long a revenue stream staple of football clubs around the world - and even those of Major League Soccer (i.e., NY Red Bull, LA Galaxy, Chivas USA) and the fledgling Women’s Professional Soccer league (i.e., LA Sol) - the move represents a significant tactical shift from The Big Three (American football, baseball, and basketball).

This coming season, the Phoenix Mercury, a women’s professional basketball team of the WNBA, will don the logo of LifeLock, an Arizona-based firm that provides identity-theft prevention services, on their uniforms. The deal is reportedly worth upwards of $1 million.

At least one other team is said to be negotiating a similar agreement.

The intimation suggests that all American sports will, pending success, follow a similar course of action. This, however, would be quite a leap.

The WNBA is the fiscally-struggling ‘female’ counterpart to the NBA. This past off-season, the Houston Comets, a Texas-based franchise, folded and the league’s 13 remaining teams cut their rosters to 11 players from 13. (Major League Soccer fans will identify with the impact of squad shrinkage.)

Hence, the league authorized teams to integrate shirt sponsorship into marketing packages on offer to partners.

What, if anything, does this have to do with football?

First, is that the game - and, more specifically, its commercial managers - should be commended and recognized as pioneers. Shirt sponsorship is an integral part of all professional - and some amateur - partnership packages throughout the sport.

According to the always current and sometimes reputable Wikipedia, Kettering became the first British football club to play with a sponsor’s name imprinted on their uniforms. The date was January 24, 1976, and local firm Kettering Tyres was the sponsor. Chief Executive and Manager Derek Dougan is credited with brokering the deal, much to the chagrin of the FA which ordered the slogan removed.

From Kettering Tyres the words were changed to ‘Kettering T’, substantiated by the argument that ‘T’ stood for ‘Town’. A £1,000 fine assured the full removal of the branding. Yet, English football went on to legalize shirt sponsorship in 1977.

From this moment, shirt sponsorship proliferated football and brought new revenue streams into clubs around the UK.

High-fives aside, what does it really mean?

In short, probably nothing.

But, this slight head-nod and go-ahead in the WNBA could signal a gradual shift of commercial policy in the North American sports industry, and perhaps - and I whisper perhaps - a greater respect for - and collaboration with - the commercial architects that make the football industry the greatest one in sport.

The American-style commercial tactics of Derby County FC’s owners General Sport and Entertainment Group (GSE) have been revealed by vice president of commercial at Pride Park, Tim Hinchey, as the company prepares to enter its second year at the helm.

GSE, club-owners since January 2008, are using tried-and-tested business methods from across the Atlantic to reap the benefits of facing Manchester United twice in the Carling Cup semi-final, and the club’s raised media profile following the appointment of new manager Nigel Clough.

Read the rest of the article