Lots of press over some jerseys

I have been surprised at all the media attention over the jersey sponsorship of the Phoenix Mercury. USA Today's Christine Brennan comments on the sponsorship (she approves) and notes that two WPS teams already have jersey sponsorships.
I'm just not quite sure what's hidden in all this discourse. It could be an issue of purity and selling out. But give me a break. Women's sports are "pure" and men's sports, which have sold every inch of stadium space to the highest bidders are somehow exempt from this criticism? Women's sports should be resisting the temptation of the almighty dollar? Wouldn't that make us--gasp--socialists?
Is it a marker of success--that companies will pay for placement on women's jerseys? Or is it more the above selling out; something some may see women's sports having to do because they are "less popular" and more in need of these sponsorship dollars?
Brennan correctly notes that athletes who participate in individual sports have had sponsors on their clothing for some time now.
Many of us non-professionals who play team sports have already experienced this. When my softball jersey arrives this week it will have the name of a local law firm on it. I don't plan on over analyzing it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would have thought it was a sign of success more than anything. It may be irritating from the purists point of view but from an English football fan's point of view we have just got used to it, and it only arouses comment these days when it is contrasted with the policy of Barcelona who actually pay Unicef to wear their insignia' in a reversal of the usual relationship. Katharine Sinderson
June 07, 2009 9:31 AM
ken said…
That's a good idea--paying a charitable organization and wearing their logo!
June 11, 2009 8:24 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why trans athletes?

In a continuation of my last post in which I crib from GLAD lawyer Jennifer Levi's thoughtful social media posts, I offer here an explanation of why and how trans athletes became the target of the right. First, I keep seeing left of center posts/headlines/discourse that highlight how few trans girls/women are competing in sports. I don't love this framing. The underlying premise of inclusion and access does not have a tipping point.  Perhaps what it is meant to show is how the right is weaponizing this issue. This is both reasonable and true but not really very profound in its assessment. Look at some of the groups and people doing the work of banning trans athletes and you will also see agendas which are racist, and anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic, and anti-LGB as well.  If I have not already recommended Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender? (though I am pretty sure I have), go read it. Some of what Butler says is what Levi echoed in a recent posting contemplating the...
Read more

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more