Sponsership and Commercialism in Football

Should Football include Sponsorship? Do we really want loads of advertising forced upon us? Would our teams suffer without it? Are the Sponsors chosen really the associations we want with Professional Football and our Teams?

The mass potential reach of Football

Football is a massive sport, even before its globalisation thousands of people were seeing any one top flight game live at the stadium.

Average Attendances for Man Utd Over the Years

(click column header to sort results)
Average Attendance  

These figures show the increasing quantities of live game spectators. Companies recognised the potential for placing company names and slogans on the perimeter boards and shirts of the players. Therefore Manchester united kit sponsor 'Sharpe' between 1990 and 2000 were able to guarantee the projection of their brand name to 35,000 to 56,000 on average a minimum of 38x a year through people in the stadium itself, making it one of the most desirable and sought after advertising spaces in the world. Big clubs sign multi year deals with advertisers simply to put their brand name of the front of the shirt for multi million pounds.

When televised, games of significant importance such as cup finals, games involving our national teams in the UK (particularly England) and games between the teams currently residing within the top 6 places within the Premier league, reach audiences within the millions. This makes Football within the UK an even more lucrative advertising avenue.

This means that in addition to clubs getting greater TV revenue and higher gate receipts, they also are able to attract more advertisers and charge greater fees for the space. This once again widens the wealth gap between top flight clubs and those in the lower divisions.

Even the name of the League is Sponsered

Sponsorship continued to be included within the name of organisations and institutions within football, as previously mentioned, the it is the 'Barclays premier league' (Sponsored by the bank) and the 'Coca cola' championships (Sponsored by the popular soft drinks manufacturer). The domestic cups have been called 'The Carling cup' (The beer manufacturer) to name just a few.

Are these Sponsers ethical ? Especially when Football is a family sport

Barclays bank has no particular negative connotations, however Coca-Cola is a drink which can lead to tooth decay, diabetes, obesity and contains the drug caffeine and alcohol such as Carling has strong links with liver failure, hypertension, ulceration of the stomach domestic violence, depression and many other health and social problems, therefore is it ethically correct that these brands are rammed down the neck of fans of a family sport such as football. The association with such brands is not limited to cup and league names as Liverpool football club have famously held long time sponsorship links with 'Carlsberg' the beer manufacturer from 1992-2010. Between 2008-2010 this is said to be "7.3 million a year payment to Liverpool" (www.theguardian.co.uk), this suggests that they feel their sponsorship of football gives them enough increase in units of sale to justify paying 7.3 million a year but do we really want football to be potentially responsible for underage drinking and alcoholism. This an ethical issue that been brought about by the effect of media in sport and its hand in transmitting and globalizing the image of football to the millions.

The advertisements printed onto the side of the pitch itself are sometimes made to be 3D and some adverts on the digital perimeter board’s strobe, flash and scroll to better catch people’s attention; however this can detract from the viewing experience and may even distract on field players from the game itself.

Liverpools recording breaking Sponsership deal

Liverpool’s new 4 year deal with sponsors 'Standard chartered' is for around £80,000,000, working out at roughly £20,000,000 a year. This money is said to contribute towards the building of a new stadium (www.dailymail.co.uk). The expansion in stadium will allow greater attendances, this results in great intake of gate receipts, this funds better players, which brings better sponsor deals and so the cycle continues. However once again the wealth gap between rich and poor clubs lengthens greater as Blackpool FC's deal with sponsor wonga.com is merely 500,000, that's 40x smaller than Liverpool’s with standard chartered. Therefore here sponsorship can be seen to develop the national sport yet sometimes at the cost of their ethics and also at risk of equality and equal opportunities between clubs.

More by this Author

Comments 8 comments

Richard-Murray 4 years ago

I know you are a manchester United fan, but most MAn U fans I know of aren't chagrin against the big club method. You and another are the only two who actually support an equalization in certain things.

Sponsorship is to big to be killed now in the men's game, the deals are for years and there are so many globally, I doubt it can be stopped. But, once again, through womens soccer it can be stopped if owners make a comittment to evaluate sponsors right now, while the sport is in its professional infancy. But, will they do this?

CCahill profile image

CCahill 4 years ago from England Author

Your right but it'll never happen, you can't blame a team for wanting to bring more money in and you can't blame a company for wanting to advertise with teams thatll result in greater reach of their brand... Are you suggesting a F.A enforced cap on the ammount earnt from Sponserships?

Richard-Murray 4 years ago

I am suggesting anyone that wants for a cap on sponsorships focus on the womens game. The mens game is on a path but womens soccer is young enough to enforce fiscal measures now, for whatever purposes. I personally don't mind sponsorships skyrocketing, successful clubs earn sponsorships deals. But, if they are to be imposed it should be in the womens game.

CCahill profile image

CCahill 4 years ago from England Author

but then a restriction on revenue potential in the womens game will result in a restriction in their investment potential in players and facilities, which will only set Womens Football back further.. It's a no win situation really :S

Richard-Murray 4 years ago

hmmm, then it is inevitable on all fronts. I think men and womens teams need to have mandatory youth setups, strong ones. That will not bring about automatic equality amongst clubs but if every club at a certain level was mandated in having strong youth setups, every club would have better quality players they could put in when they don't have great economic resources and can produce a better product on the pitch.

CCahill profile image

CCahill 4 years ago from England Author

Hopefully the wage cap will go someway to fixing that by preventing us from beating all other clubs to foreign players

Richard-Murray 4 years ago

The wage cap will make teams make smarter choices, less risk.

But, stronger youth setups would do that better. Look at DC United in MLS. they are financially in the worst position but worked on their youth movement and are doing decently in MLS. Look at Lille or Montpellier in France. Both teams have been ahead in youth play for a while and because of the cap teams arent willing to just buy players so they keep some of their talent and PSG are denied:) Youth development in La Masia is why Barca is so strong. All their top players come from their youth system.

CCahill profile image

CCahill 4 years ago from England Author

i don't know the MLS game that well unfortunately, paying a little more attention since Man Utd's pre season tour 2011/2012, I particularly liked The Seattle Sounders but that was more their fans. How they doing?

Did Hazard come up through Lille or?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article