[RWC] RWC shirt sponsor

[crossref]

So, as I understand it, teams are not allowed to have shirt sponsors at the RWC

Not sure why, but there it is .

So why do the referees have a shirt sponsor ?

 

[chbg]

Because the sponsorship money goes to WR?

 

[beckett50]

Same as the Olympics I'm guessing. Only those approved by the Organising Committee - the suits at WR - can be displayed.

 

[crossref]

Same as the Olympics I'm guessing. Only those approved by the Organising Committee - the suits at WR - can be displayed.

So why not aprove some team sponsors .. and take a cut even.

Seems like sponsor money is being left on the table

 

[L'irlandais]

This issue raised its head back in RWC 2015 too. An article headed: Rugby World Cup – The Death of Logo Centered Sponsorship

Interestingly, the Rugby World Cup is commencing today. In keeping with the basis of the Soccerex discussion is the reminder that no official team sponsor will be allowed to display their logo on their respective team shirts at the tournament as England’s Rugby sponsorship is handled by the RFU, whilst the Rugby World Cup is handled by World Rugby.

Emirates give there side of the story.

Emirates also extended its sponsorship of the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) match officials until the end of 2019, which includes for the first time in Rugby World Cup (RWC) history the rights to brand the shirts of match officials on the field of play during the tournament. Since the inception of RWC in 1987, no brand has ever featured on the playing kits of players or match officials.

Emirates company website
Wonder how much that cost them?

 

[crossref]

So back to my first question .. why do the RWC eschew shirt sponsors ?

 

[L'irlandais]

chbg answered your original question, referees have Emirates logo because WR make the tournament rules and regulations. So they can bend the rules to suit themselves. Probably got a lucrative deal on flights to Japan.

I suspect sponsorship has become more and more complicated with the advent of TV rights. The tournament has official sponsors, who won’t like being upstaged by others having their logo on 30+ individuals which the camera Is focusing on. Also it is apparently possible for those stadium billboards to be «*replaced*» (pasted over) on retransmitted images, because their positions are a known factor in a 3D space, not so the jerseys running willy nilly about the pitch. To ensure the best possible deal from current sponsors, WR need to be able to reassure them their rivals cannot upstage them? Allowing 20 Unions put their sponsors on jerseys effectively would mean WR could not make any assurances to tournament sponsors about exclusive rights. That money is pocketed by the Unions not WR. A bit like one of your guests turning up at a house-party you organised and selling refreshments to the other folks you invited.

Perhaps Google it, the question has probably already been answered.

 

[crossref]

No, I realise that the reason teams don't have shirt sponsor is because RWC won't let them

My question is : why don't RWC allow shirt sponsors ? That is a lot of potential revenue turned down

 

[damo]

chbg answered your original question, referees have Emirates logo because WR make the tournament rules and regulations. So they can bend the rules to suit themselves. Probably got a lucrative deal on flights to Japan.

I suspect sponsorship has become more and more complicated with the advent of TV rights. The tournament has official sponsors, who won’t like being upstaged by others having their logo on 30+ individuals which the camera Is focusing on. Also it is apparently possible for those stadium billboards to be «*replaced*» (pasted over) on retransmitted images, because their positions are a known factor in a 3D space, not so the jerseys running willy nilly about the pitch. To ensure the best possible deal from current sponsors, WR need to be able to reassure them their rivals cannot upstage them? Allowing 20 Unions put their sponsors on jerseys effectively would mean WR could not make any assurances to tournament sponsors about exclusive rights. That money is pocketed by the Unions not WR. A bit like one of your guests turning up at a house-party you organised and selling refreshments to the other folks you invited.

Perhaps Google it, the question has probably already been answered.

Nailed it. If teams were allowed sponsors, these sponsors could easily clash with RWC sponsors, thus making the RWC sponsorship less attractive.

There are a lot of lofty goals for the RWC, but fundamentally it is designed to make money for WR operations.

 

[damo]

No, I realise that the reason teams don't have shirt sponsor is because RWC won't let them

My question is : why don't RWC allow shirt sponsors ? That is a lot of potential revenue turned down

Potential for clash with one of the team's sponsors perhaps.

For example the All Blacks would be put in a tough position if WR said they had to wear Emirates on their shirt - given that Air New Zealand is a big sponsor of NZ Rugby. You could say the same about just about any company that was internaitonal and prominent enough to want to sponsor a shirt (i.e. Coke v Pepsi, rival beer companies, apparel companies, etc.

 

[crossref]

Potential for clash with one of the team's sponsors perhaps.

For example the All Blacks would be put in a tough position if WR said they had to wear Emirates on their shirt - given that Air New Zealand is a big sponsor of NZ Rugby. You could say the same about just about any company that was internaitonal and prominent enough to want to sponsor a shirt (i.e. Coke v Pepsi, rival beer companies, apparel companies, etc.

I don't really see that.Every other competition in rugby has both tournament sponsors and also team sponsors . Doesn't seem to cause any problems

 

[Volun-selected]

Is the reason the officials are branded because those tops are possibly the only thing *not* for sale? I think I've had pretty much everything possible dumped over my screen for sale, but I've not seen ref shirts being pimped. Not yet, anyway...

 

[Rich_NL]

2015 tops were branded and for sale...

 

[L'irlandais]

I don't really see that.Every other competition in rugby has both tournament sponsors and also team sponsors . Doesn't seem to cause any problems

It’s not that it doesn’t cause problems; I just think the individual soccer federations are more powerful than FIFA.
See this article for details:Soccer jersey sponsors and the world cup.(aka Sponsorship in Association Football)

The market for soccer jerseys is a multibillion market dominated by Adidas, Nike and Puma.

If you are earning big money directly, you don’t need to kowtow to the governing body for handouts to survive.

The three main sources of finance are the revenues from the sales of TV rights, gate revenues and revenues from sponsoring and merchandize.

What you are suggesting is robbing Peter to pay Paul, as far as WR are concerned. By not allowing logos on teams’ kit they (WR) can earn more from TV advertising. Also that money goes direct to WR coffers and not to the individual Unions. Which gives WR further control over the distribution after the WRC. And when a TV sponsor say «*You told us there’d be no logos on the field of play.*» Nope we said «*No sponsors on the teams jerseys; oh, and do read the small print before you sign.*»
The incentive of first class flights for WR staff to the RWC Japan 2019, surely influenced their decision too.

 

[crossref]

I was thinking more of the rugby 6 nations or championship.
Or the European Cup

All those have tournament sponsors and also team sponsors

 

[L'irlandais]

I think each tournament comes with its own set of conundrums.

Gallagher, Heineken and Guinness – 3 different approaches to sponsorship

How the three title sponsors ensure they ‘own the moment’.

The underlying problem is that everyone was exclusive rights, and they are willing to pay big money to get that exclusivity. It seems that Rugby can still offer it, whereas Football can no longer do so.

There is still space in Rugby for big logos

Football is totally overcrowded. If you take the FIFA World Cup, for example, there’s far too many brands associating themselves directly. It is difficult to cut through whereas you don’t have that as much with rugby.

So it seems some sponsors like Heineken want to cut out the competition. Others like Gallagher want to differentiate from the competition by embracing the grassroots game/community angle.

Sponsorship and commercial managers in rugby have a hard job guaranteeing the exposure that their sponsors expect.

So it is very much a case of getting the blend right, to suit these different needs and exploit the attraction Rugby has, due to its lack of big names for now.

 

[crossref]

One real step forward in the RWC is that they have finally removed the ref cams.

Without a camera strapped to them all the refs look trimmer, smarter and more dignified

Anyone miss the occasional shaky misaligned footage of scrums ? Thought not .

Hopefully this will set a trend

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

One real step forward in the RWC is that they have finally removed the ref cams.

Without a camera strapped to them all the refs look trimmer, smarter and more dignified
Anyone miss the occasional shaky misaligned footage of scrums ? Thought not .

Hopefully this will set a trend

Nic Berry still wears one, but it points at him!

 

[Balones]

Not really on topic but I thought I’d share the time I was assessing at an U18 international between England and France. The match officials were provided with two shirts - one white and one blue!