At 6/25/10 03:37 PM, Haggard wrote:
Maybe not moved, but bought? Oh yes, that has happened.
Ah yes, forgot about them. They also own NYC's FC. Which brings up another issue: WAY too much advertising, franchising, merchandising, marketing, labelling, branding, and other assorted neologisms for barefaced profiteering in not only US sports, but just about everything west of the Atlantic. Mexican and Argentinian football matches are the only ones where i remember watching an in-game commercial, like a banner ad, WITH AUDIO, nonetheless.
When you eliminate things like naming a stadium "The Coca-Cola Center" (i know, might have happened here or there in Europe, but nowhere near as prevalent as in the US), the "adidas PLAY OF THE MATCH", the "Sony CORNER KICK", the "Subway SUBSTITUTION", and leave a sport to its raw essence, you tend to take it a lot more seriously. Specially when compared to a NASCAR driver racing in a car sponsored by Tide.
Has oh-so-much to do with driving, doesn't it? Like NASCAR doesn't have enough credibility issues.
In fact, i vividly remember a Porto striker getting into some serious trouble about a t-shirt he wore under his kit jersey to advertise a soft drink. And i agree with that, suspend him for a few matches, there's already enough advertising from those sideline boards and on the club kits. Keep the sport pure, or at least as pure as possible. This comes from legislation on a federation level, so it is fair, all the clubs get the same amount of advertising opportunities. The federation says what's OK and what's not.
To tie it all up with my initial point, keeping the sport pure means it gets taken seriously, and it's a lot easier to listen to a player who doesn't mention his sponsorship in the interview.