Same as the Olympics I'm guessing. Only those approved by the Organising Committee - the suits at WR - can be displayed.
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.
Nailed it. If teams were allowed sponsors, these sponsors could easily clash with RWC sponsors, thus making the RWC sponsorship less attractive.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.
Potential for clash with one of the team's sponsors perhaps.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.
It’s not that it doesn’t cause problems; I just think the individual soccer federations are more powerful than FIFA.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
If you are earning big money directly, you don’t need to kowtow to the governing body for handouts to survive.The market for soccer jerseys is a multibillion market dominated by Adidas, Nike and Puma.
How the three title sponsors ensure they ‘own the moment’.
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.Sponsorship and commercial managers in rugby have a hard job guaranteeing the exposure that their sponsors expect.
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