ADVERTISEMENT

"The futue of college football is here."

This actually makes for an interesting discussion regarding potential ramifications and why I don’t believe this is the “future of college football.”

For example, I’m assuming they’ll be a cataclysmic event in the near future that allows players to profit off their likeness, including jerseys. Let’s say a fan buys a jersey with one of these usernames on it. What if the student-athlete decides to change his username? The jersey becomes outdated. Do they get their money back? Is the player contractually “locked-in” to that username as long as he’s at the school? Would a username change be viewed the same way as a number change?

IMO, it seems like it’d be much easier to just use last names in that case.
 
If the NBA and the NHL are wearing a singular sponsor logo in their helmet or jersey then why can’t the colleges. Slap a Golden Arches logo on the blue jersey. That would look nice. Ask McDonald’s for a few million dollars as the only sponsor. Winner

Look at European soccer for the last 20 years or so. Advertisements galore.

now if we could just get the ACC network on the local cable.
 
This actually makes for an interesting discussion regarding potential ramifications and why I don’t believe this is the “future of college football.”

For example, I’m assuming they’ll be a cataclysmic event in the near future that allows players to profit off their likeness, including jerseys. Let’s say a fan buys a jersey with one of these usernames on it. What if the student-athlete decides to change his username? The jersey becomes outdated. Do they get their money back? Is the player contractually “locked-in” to that username as long as he’s at the school? Would a username change be viewed the same way as a number change?

IMO, it seems like it’d be much easier to just use last names in that case.
Or is "NikemanNewt" violating a trademark?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725
If the NBA and the NHL are wearing a singular sponsor logo in their helmet or jersey then why can’t the colleges. Slap a Golden Arches logo on the blue jersey. That would look nice. Ask McDonald’s for a few million dollars as the only sponsor. Winner

Look at European soccer for the last 20 years or so. Advertisements galore.

now if we could just get the ACC network on the local cable.
Is there a distinction if the logo is placed on the uniform by the team versus being placed by the player?

I am fine with teams having product endorsement on their uniforms. Likewise, I don't really care if players do the same. This is part of the point of the use of player likeness. The players are trying to see themselves as a brand in and of itself. If that competes with a sponsor of the team, it will cause an issue.

International sports organisations do manage this. I am very familiar with the IIHF regulations as our club ran an IIHF U20s world champions division tournament 4 years ago (I was the local organising committee chair so I had to ensure compliance with all of this stuff). The IIHF very much controls what is displayed on the playing uniform. They do not allow any logos or brands that conflict with the central IIHF sponsors. For example, IIHF has an exclusive sponsorship agreement with Skoda (or they did at that time). No other car brand logo could be displayed in the rink or on the uniforms. We had a "Kia" logo in the ice and on the wall, and had to remove them. Player equipment must be on the "approved suppliers" list for IIHF, or the logos on the equipment need to be covered. The logos on sticks or the front of the helmet were the usual locations for the unapproved logos. Teams got around this by having a non-competing team sponsor logo sticker on the front of the helmet over the unapproved "Mission" or "Warrior" logos (who were not on the approved suppliers list at the time). My point being that players could put stuff on their uniform or endorse products in their playing uniform that could violate exclusive agreements that the teams have with sponsors. Who owns the message? The team or the player?

Now I am probably more likely to not buy a product for advertising with a team than to buy a product advertising with my team. I am just like that (I think they call that being a dick...). If every available automobile manufacturer had their logos on, say a certain other CFB team that I dislike, I would be trying to figure out how and where to park a horse. I did buy Dukes mayonnaise after a thread on here about it sponsoring the bowl game. And I did find the mayo to be better than the local brands so maybe I would buy stuff on Pitt's jerseys.
 
Is there a distinction if the logo is placed on the uniform by the team versus being placed by the player?

I am fine with teams having product endorsement on their uniforms. Likewise, I don't really care if players do the same. This is part of the point of the use of player likeness. The players are trying to see themselves as a brand in and of itself. If that competes with a sponsor of the team, it will cause an issue.

International sports organisations do manage this. I am very familiar with the IIHF regulations as our club ran an IIHF U20s world champions division tournament 4 years ago (I was the local organising committee chair so I had to ensure compliance with all of this stuff). The IIHF very much controls what is displayed on the playing uniform. They do not allow any logos or brands that conflict with the central IIHF sponsors. For example, IIHF has an exclusive sponsorship agreement with Skoda (or they did at that time). No other car brand logo could be displayed in the rink or on the uniforms. We had a "Kia" logo in the ice and on the wall, and had to remove them. Player equipment must be on the "approved suppliers" list for IIHF, or the logos on the equipment need to be covered. The logos on sticks or the front of the helmet were the usual locations for the unapproved logos. Teams got around this by having a non-competing team sponsor logo sticker on the front of the helmet over the unapproved "Mission" or "Warrior" logos (who were not on the approved suppliers list at the time). My point being that players could put stuff on their uniform or endorse products in their playing uniform that could violate exclusive agreements that the teams have with sponsors. Who owns the message? The team or the player?

Now I am probably more likely to not buy a product for advertising with a team than to buy a product advertising with my team. I am just like that (I think they call that being a dick...). If every available automobile manufacturer had their logos on, say a certain other CFB team that I dislike, I would be trying to figure out how and where to park a horse. I did buy Dukes mayonnaise after a thread on here about it sponsoring the bowl game. And I did find the mayo to be better than the local brands so maybe I would buy stuff on Pitt's jerseys.
FYI, Dukes is very popular in North Carolina. I’ve tried it, and it is very good.

I do agree with you about not buying something when the company sponsors a team I don’t like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USN_Panther
NCAA can't figure out how to have adequate facilities for the NCAA womens hoop tournament, but they'll ban this in no time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77
This actually makes for an interesting discussion regarding potential ramifications and why I don’t believe this is the “future of college football.”

For example, I’m assuming they’ll be a cataclysmic event in the near future that allows players to profit off their likeness, including jerseys. Let’s say a fan buys a jersey with one of these usernames on it. What if the student-athlete decides to change his username? The jersey becomes outdated. Do they get their money back? Is the player contractually “locked-in” to that username as long as he’s at the school? Would a username change be viewed the same way as a number change?

IMO, it seems like it’d be much easier to just use last names in that case.
The original jersey becomes a "classic", and sells for thousands through an online auction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725
Considering how easily people get into trouble on social media, it's probably a bad idea. Besides, I liked having my family's name on the back of my shirt in college. Wasn't just about me. They had to sacrifice a lot to get me there.

Other issue is, what if a guy doesn't want to be on social media? Not everyone wants that and I can recall several guys quitting social media because it was a distraction for them.
 
ADVERTISEMENT