Position Specific Helmets?

ill said:
each player makes their own bed.

shit, Brady was shown covering the Nike logo after the SB win

Click to expand...

I like that he hides the one on his chest but you can still see the one on his sleeve.
 
Rex Racer said:
LOL at Pennsylvania public schools.
Click to expand...
I've never gone to school in Pennsylvania.

I see that you'd just like to complain about something without detailing what your exact complaint even is or offering a reasonable explanation for how it could be remedied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
phillyphilly said:
I like that he hides the one on his chest but you can still see the one on his sleeve.
Click to expand...
he was already drunk, probably didn't know it was there
 
If there are official sponsors, then that typically comes with the stipulation that players/teams/staff cannot display (endorse) other competing brands. Hence the uniform rules stipulated by the NFL. While players could sign endorsement deals with other brands, they cannot display those logos on the field during high marketable situations on TV, nor can they use anything related to the NFL on outside endorsements.

This decreases the market in favor of a few that has exclusive rights within the NFL. Therefore, any of the players endorsed by non-sanctioned brands have less marketability due to the exclusivity of these sponsorship deals. For the stars, they have the sponsorship deals because they're on TV, and they're on TV more because of the sponsorship deals.

A center may be the most talented player on the team, but has no market share compared to "favored positions" that get TV time. Why can't they wear a logo of whatever brand is willing to give them the most money for whatever little marketability they'll receive?

The concept of official sponsors is a monopoly. League standards of uniforms should be based upon color schemes being consistent, not who makes and displays their logo.
 
Cobrabit said:
If there are official sponsors, then that typically comes with the stipulation that players/teams/staff cannot display (endorse) other competing brands. Hence the uniform rules stipulated by the NFL. While players could sign endorsement deals with other brands, they cannot display those logos on the field during high marketable situations on TV, nor can they use anything related to the NFL on outside endorsements.

This decreases the market in favor of a few that has exclusive rights within the NFL. Therefore, any of the players endorsed by non-sanctioned brands have less marketability due to the exclusivity of these sponsorship deals. For the stars, they have the sponsorship deals because they're on TV, and they're on TV more because of the sponsorship deals.

A center may be the most talented player on the team, but has no market share compared to "favored positions" that get TV time. Why can't they wear a logo of whatever brand is willing to give them the most money for whatever little marketability they'll receive?

The concept of official sponsors is a monopoly. League standards of uniforms should be based upon color schemes being consistent, not who makes and displays their logo.
Click to expand...
again, I'd rather not look at a player and think NASCAR.

I am not a fan of brand logos at all, even if they are the maker of the uniform.
 
ill said:
again, I'd rather not look at a player and think NASCAR.

I am not a fan of brand logos at all, even if they are the maker of the uniform.
Click to expand...

Get rid of the logo completely (I agree as an option) or allow others to join in. There can be set guidelines on color scheme, sizing, etc, but no one company should have exclusive rights preventing other players from making similar money.

Your NASCAR example is one extreme, but yet is fair for anyone with talent to be in the league to be endorsed by others.

Middle ground would be the NBA or MLB where they could have outside endorsements, but the uniform is consistent.
 
Cobrabit said:
If there are official sponsors, then that typically comes with the stipulation that players/teams/staff cannot display (endorse) other competing brands. Hence the uniform rules stipulated by the NFL. While players could sign endorsement deals with other brands, they cannot display those logos on the field during high marketable situations on TV, nor can they use anything related to the NFL on outside endorsements.

This decreases the market in favor of a few that has exclusive rights within the NFL. Therefore, any of the players endorsed by non-sanctioned brands have less marketability due to the exclusivity of these sponsorship deals. For the stars, they have the sponsorship deals because they're on TV, and they're on TV more because of the sponsorship deals.

A center may be the most talented player on the team, but has no market share compared to "favored positions" that get TV time. Why can't they wear a logo of whatever brand is willing to give them the most money for whatever little marketability they'll receive?

The concept of official sponsors is a monopoly. League standards of uniforms should be based upon color schemes being consistent, not who makes and displays their logo.
Click to expand...
The fact that the NFL has these exclusive rights is factored into the agreement that the league and players association enter into when they sign a collective bargaining agreement. If the players want some sort of right to display their own brands, they could certainly push for it in CBA negotiations. They either haven’t done so or have ultimately abandoned it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
phillyphilly said:
The fact that the NFL has these exclusive rights is factored into the agreement that the league and players association enter into when they sign a collective bargaining agreement. If the players want some sort of right to display their own brands, they could certainly push for it in CBA negotiations. They either haven’t done so or have ultimately abandoned it.
Click to expand...
The majority of the players probably get more money by splitting exclusive right money than they would for wearing an Under Armour glove
 
gobucks0409 said:
The majority of the players probably get more money by splitting exclusive right money than they would for wearing an Under Armour glove
Click to expand...
fucking socialism
 
phillyphilly said:
The fact that the NFL has these exclusive rights is factored into the agreement that the league and players association enter into when they sign a collective bargaining agreement. If the players want some sort of right to display their own brands, they could certainly push for it in CBA negotiations. They either haven’t done so or have ultimately abandoned it.
Click to expand...

Negotiating is weighing what each side can walk away with where both win. Doesn't mean what is left on the table isn't right to do. I agree that they have decided other priorities come first, but do you disagree that it shouldn't be fixed?

Remember, while the players association represents all players, let's not kid ourselves that the stars don't have leeway.
 
Cobrabit said:
Negotiating is weighing what each side can walk away with where both win. Doesn't mean what is left on the table isn't right to do. I agree that they have decided other priorities come first, but do you disagree that it shouldn't be fixed?

Remember, while the players association represents all players, let's not kid ourselves that the stars don't have leeway.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree or disagree. It’s something that has very little impact on my enjoyment of the game.

I do, however, enjoy arguing about things so I’ve jumped into this discussion.
 
Cobrabit said:
Negotiating is weighing what each side can walk away with where both win. Doesn't mean what is left on the table isn't right to do. I agree that they have decided other priorities come first, but do you disagree that it shouldn't be fixed?

Remember, while the players association represents all players, let's not kid ourselves that the stars don't have leeway.
Click to expand...
agree

there are a lot of more marketable positions than Center...they are left with doing tv ads for local banks and shit while the Bradys of the NFL who are bringing in those other endorsement deals.
 
phillyphilly said:
I don’t agree or disagree. It’s something that has very little impact on my enjoyment of the game.

I do, however, enjoy arguing about things so I’ve jumped into this discussion.
Click to expand...
Same. None of celebrities/
Athletes lives/ opinions mean much to me.

I don't like people/ organizations/ government telling me I can't do something that helps my family and doesn't affect others outside of their own monopoly if it's not against the law.
 
Cobrabit said:
Same. None of celebrities/
Athletes lives/ opinions mean much to me.

I don't like people/ organizations/ government telling me I can't do something that helps my family and doesn't affect others outside of their own monopoly if it's not against the law.
Click to expand...
ok let's take it another step and get away from the NFL for a second

do you think professional wrestlers should be allowed endorsement deals?
 
ill said:
ok let's take it another step and get away from the NFL for a second

do you think professional wrestlers should be allowed endorsement deals?
Click to expand...

Don't watch wrestling, at least not since I was a kid, but what would be some reasons for and against in your opinion? I'm more familiar with the NFL regulations and sponsorships, so I'm ignorant on the topic.
 
Cobrabit said:
Don't watch wrestling, at least not since I was a kid, but what would be some reasons for and against in your opinion? I'm mote familiar with the NFL regulations and sponsorships, so I'm ignorant on the topic.
Click to expand...
I mean they have the same kind of thing

you don't see them getting in the ring with Nike or UA brands on their gear and there is nothing "uniform" about what they wear.



I kind of forget what I was going for here...
 
ill said:
I mean they have the same kind of thing

you don't see them getting in the ring with Nike or UA brands on their gear and there is nothing "uniform" about what they wear.



I kind of forget what I was going for here...
Click to expand...

Lol to your last line.

I would apologize to the OP of getting off topic, but since you're the OP, we can go down the rabbit hole.

If WWE (that's the current name, right? ) had exclusive contracts, with let's say, Nike to produce uniforms for every wrestler, but a lowly journeyman that is always scripted to lose has Reebok wishing to endorse him. If Reebok will provide the same color scheme, but change the swoosh to their logo at a similar size, then what's the damage? The exclusive rights between WWE and Nike would suffer, yet the journeyman would benefit, along with Reebok seeig their logo being pinned, as viewership improves sales, regardless of wins or losses.

Why shouldn't this journeyman do what he can to make money from an individual standpoint. It may hurt the league/ exclusive partner, but that would also considered a monopoly that the government would look to break up for the benefit of the common man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top