Stealing the Shirt onto Your Back

Real Madrid recently paid Manchester United £80million for the contract of Portuguese front man, Cristiano Ronaldo. This may have robbed English football of one of its best dramatists, but it was enough to cover about 12% of United's massive debt in one fell swoop. Florentino Perez, the once and future Real Madrid president, justified this record breaking price by sighting the merchandising opportunities that will come from having the 'world's best player' on the roster, particularly in shirt sales.

Shirt sales? Shirt sales? As an American I must admit that I find the economics of football shirts rather bizarre on several levels.

The strangest feature of football shirts for most Americans is the advertising, or as it is known in the UK, the shirt sponsor. You may think that Americans are comfortable with blanket advertising and unlimited commercialisation, but you would be wrong. There are certain sacred places where it is considered unacceptable. The chests of professional athletes is one of those sacred places. The only types of teams that regularly feature advertisements on their uniforms (other than Major League Soccer, which is just copying the European trend) are local children's leagues. Often a local restauranteur or plumber will pay for the uniforms and in return will get his firm's name above the number on the back of each shirt. The idea of a major sports team having something similar is unthinkable. It would seem rather desperate.

I can think of two reasons why this might be the case. One is that American sports teams tend to have their name written on the front of their shirts in big letters (or in American football, big numbers). We are not content with a small, subtle badge that can only be seen a few yards away. If we are going to see a major sporting event we expect to see clearly who is who. So, there has never been a time when American athletes have sported large blank spaces on thier shirts for admen to colonise. The other reason is tradition. English people often assume Americans have no traditions, but this is only said by people who have never been inside a baseball park. Advertising on billboards in the stadium, on programs and on souvenier knick-knacks is fair game. But not on the players. It just isn't done.

And, there is one more subtler reason. American sports franchises are not platforms for promoting someone else's brand because they are a brand unto themselves. Having a big beer logo on the chest of the most visible part of that brand is a fairly strange marketing strategy. It would be like producing a soft drink can that had 'FLY EMIRATES' in big bold letters and, in one corner, a small Coca-Cola logo.

The other very strange practice with football shirts is the way clubs use them to unashamedly extort obsene amounts of money from their fanbase each year.

In the UK a replica football shirt will set you back roughly £40-50 (the Bath City one I bought recently was £38). You might think that most clubs would be satisfied once a fan had parted with such an eye-watering sum, but you would be wrong. Any serious fan will not just buy a home shirt, but also an away shirt. Is that enough? No. Most Premiership clubs have a third version of their kit as well. This is because there is a small chance that they might visit an opposing club who's home strip is similar to their away strip. So there is an absolute, iron-clad, unassailable reason why clubs need three strips (and £40 more by the way, thanks).

Is that the end? Ha, ha, gentle reader. You betray such charming innocence if you think that is the end. These three shirts will, of course, need to be replaced every season. It would just not do to wear the same kit two years running. The home shirt will still have the traditional club colours, but without doubt will have several obvious design changes that will mark you out as behind the times if you do not buy the update. Oh, and don't forget to pay extra for the name and number of your favourite player (look out Real Madrid fans - you have £80million to make up. Get buying!).

And don't forget your children. They won't want to be seen in last year's Liverpool kit, will they?

I contrast this with my home baseball team, the Atlanta Braves. The current uniform worn by the Braves was introduced in 1989. Other than the occasional shoulder patch to commemorate something or other, it has remained unchanged. The 1989 design was in fact a return to a basic design that the Braves wore between 1953-1965. It is one of the best uniforms in sports. Why change it?

I must give credit, as well, to the directors of Bath City. After signing a two year contract with current shirt sponsors, SN Scaffolds, the decision was made to not make any changes to the home shirt over that two year period. The away kit has been redesinged, but only because referees rightfully complained that the numbers on the players backs were hard to read.

Unfortunately this naked grab for suporter's cash generally works. However, sometimes the more disgruntled fans do not give in. Sometimes they resist and clubs learn their lesson. Yesterday Newcastle released their new away kit for the upcoming season after weeks of build up. In the past this would have caused thousands of fans to queue for hours to be one of the first to sport the new design around town. But Newcastle fans are not feeling kindly disposed to the club owners. Last year they were relegated from the Premiership despite having, on paper, a decent squad. This was accomplised through a series of bad decisions and blunders, many embarassing to watch, and all of them infuriating to the Toon supporters. Sensing the unrest of their normally loyal fans Newcastle slashed the cost of the new shirts by 20% before they had gone on sale. Finally the big day approached, and instead of the normal thousands of supporters they managed three. One adult male fan and a mother and child to be exact. So they actually only sold two shirts. It did not help that the new design featured banana-yellow stripes, but Newcastle fans are famous for enduring anything for the sake of their club. Anything, it would appear, except contempt.