Should clubs provide the option to buy shirts without a sponsor on?

CraftySoAndSo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
1,181
So earlier today i came across Stoke City's new kits for next season and apparently the last few years they've given you the option of buying the kits without the sponsor on the front of the shirt. Do you feel more clubs should do this especially if they have a sponsor you don't like or even if you think the kit looks ugly with the sponsor on it. For the record here are Stoke's kits next year both with and without the sponsor so you can see yourself (kits look lovely).

i4nkqqrx0g391.jpg
5lnelswx0g391.jpg

5fqab40y0g391.jpg
6kiqrc2y0g391.jpg

5frz4h5y0g391.jpg
iwefzm8y0g391.jpg


So do you think this is a good idea or not?
 
Surely there would be legal implications if a club did that? I mean sponsors pay an awful lot of money to have their logo on the shirts...
 
I d love it, but I don't think sponsors would allow it (for the massive clubs).
 
kids aren't allowed strips with gambling companies on I do believe.
Sponsors are part of the brand, I loved United shirts with Sharp on them.
 
Would be great but sponsors pay top dollar for the visibility.

I don't think we even see too many alcohol sponsors on shirts these days. The top teams don't even put betting companies on their kits now.
 
AndySmith1990 said:
Surely there would be legal implications if a club did that? I mean sponsors pay an awful lot of money to have their logo on the shirts...
Click to expand...
Not an issue for Stoke who share an owner with their sponsor though.

I don’t really have have any issue with sponsors (aside the likes of gambling, alcohol and cigarette companies who legally shouldn’t be allowed) and I don’t see any club costing themselves the $$$ from sponsors
 
Would only work for clubs like Stoke or Man City where the sponsor is also the owner. No way Teamviewer pay 50 odd million a year to not have their name on our kit.
 
Obviously but I don't think their sponsors would humor the idea seeing that they pay exorbitant amounts of cash to have their names plastered over.
Would kinda defeat the purpose of sponsorship if folk are just gonna get a sponsor less kit instead.
 
I remember when I bought my first United shirt in 1985 (rather my parents bought it!), you could pay extra to have the sponsor on it!!
 
Moby said:
Hilarious expecting sellout clubs like ours to let go of any money.
Click to expand...

If they forefeit a few million quid and announced rather than making a signing they instead allowed fans to buy a shirt without a sponsor our non-sellout fans would be off their bollocks with joy and wouldn’t at all head to the transfer thread for a meltdown
 
horsechoker said:
Would be great but sponsors pay top dollar for the visibility.

I don't think we even see too many alcohol sponsors on shirts these days. The top teams don't even put betting companies on their kits now.
Click to expand...
They would if they pay up, didn't Madrid have a betting company as a sponsor just a while ago?
 
Hmm, i really don't think me seeing a guy with TeamViewer plastered across his shirt in the local pub is going to make me think about that company. The visibility is surely from the TV coverage and all that of the actual club?

Infact, if I seen a shirt without a sponsor in a pub, I'd probably be more likely to think "who the feck sponsors them" and Google it.
 
Yeah but it won’t happen for obvious reasons. The right sponsor can enhance a kit though, imagine seeing a 90s United kit without sharp on it. It’s part of the nostalgia.
 
Sure, but would enough pay £20 extra for a shirt without a sponsor on it to make it worth it?
 
Skills said:
Sure, but would enough pay £20 extra for a shirt without a sponsor on it to make it worth it?
Click to expand...

If I could pay 20 to remove that athrocious Chevvy logo a couple years ago, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.