With sponsorship being a key driver behind many events, stadiums and even players involved in the NFL, it is hard to believe that the league has not followed in the footsteps of many leagues around the world and introduced sponsorship on jerseys. This added revenue is the driving force keeping many teams afloat in leagues such as the English Premier League and the Australian Football League.

With Nike having the apparel sponsorship locked up for an estimated $220 million a year, it still leaves room for a main sponsor which could be placed either below or above the number on the front of the jersey. There is also ample room on the back, below the number, leaving a spot for a second sponsor or a repeat logo of the front sponsor.

So just how much would money would putting a logo on an NFL jersey bring in for the teams? Using current sponsorship deals as yardsticks, we can work out a possible figure.

Football powerhouses Barcelona and Manchester United each have deals which are believed to be in the region of $30-40 million per year. Though NFL is a massive sport worldwide, it doesn’t have the global pull of fans as much as these clubs do, especially in regards to TV audience and jersey sales. On the second tier, which includes teams such as Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City, brands pay around $12-15 million for the main logo spot on front of their respective jerseys.

Taking a look at the MLS, shirt sponsorship varies from between $1 and $3 million, with that number expected to rise as the competition garners more support.

So looking at the data presented, it is possible that big market teams such as the NY Giants, Pittsburgh Steelers, Dallas Cowboys and Chicago Bears could reach a figure somewhere in the $15-20 million range with smaller market teams such as the St. Louis Rams reaching around $6-10 million. The disparity between the teams would be a slight concern, however there would be ways in which these teams could reach a similar figure. If the sponsorship was based on bonuses such as TV audience figures, making the playoffs and making an appearance in the Super Bowl, smaller teams would be able to bridge the gap through performance.

There would be no shortage of sponsors wanting to jump on board either, with the NFL breaking TV audience records all the time. Not to mention there is no stopping other leagues such as the NBA and NHL adopting this too.

I can’t quite fathom how this has not already been introduced, especially at a time when there is a shortfall between player and owner demands. Although a small figure in relative terms, it would certainly bring each side much closer together, and I’m sure fans wouldn’t have a problem with a company logo on their team’s jersey if it meant they could actually watch football.

Jersey Sponsorship: Could This Help Save The NFL CBA? from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

As I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, English Premier League team Liverpool Football Club, aka, “The Reds,” were sold to New England Sports Ventures under the ownership of Americans John W. Henry and Tom Werner on 15 October 2010 for £300m.

I know this is tough for all you Liverpool fans to see another foreign owner take charge of your beloved club.  And I’m sure it is more frustrating to see Americans running the show, especially with the different level of play between the two countries.  You’re probably asking yourselves what true experience they have for this beautiful game of soccer and if they know the proper way to create a winning squad.

However fans, I have some news for you.

What do English Premier League Football teams Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Fulham, Manchester City, Manchester United, Arsenal and now Liverpool, all have in common?

Super wealthy foreign investors own them all!

Let’s review: Malcolm Glazer owns Manchester United, Randy Lerner owns Aston Villa, Stan Kroenke is a significant shareholder with Arsenal, and all are from The  USA.   Roman Abramovich from Russia owns Chelsea and Alisher Usmanov, another significant shareholder with Arsenal, is from Uzbekistan.  Carson Yeung, a Hong Kong businessman owns Birmingham City and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, from the United Arab Emirates, owns Manchester City.  These are just a few.

Now, add two very successful Americans, John W. Henry and Thomas C. Werner to this list. They are the current owners of the Boston Red Sox (and newly acquired Liverpool F.C.), an American Major League Baseball franchise, who transformed this once mediocre team, to being crowned World Champions in 2004 and 2007.

As an American, and someone who works in the soccer industry, I feel it is great to see foreign owners getting involved in the game. Whether it’s for the glory on the field, or for financial gain only, it brings a greater awareness to the game in general. After all, fans only want to see one thing and one thing only on the result sheet every week.  Win.

Here in the USA, we too are being infused with players and coaches with Premiership and International experience. It all lends itself ultimately to a better soccer experience for the fan, a greater level of competitiveness and, a better product.

Back to Liverpool and those fiercely loyal English fans. Let’s not forget they were once the dominant team in England. They won league titles virtually every year between 1973 and 1984 along with three European Cups, three FA Cups and four League Cups.  Since then, success at this level has been hard to come by, and the team has disappointed fans looking to repeat those golden years.  Henry and Werner offer the monetary infusion and management skills necessary to reinvigorate this once dominant team. And that is my very point. Do the loyal fans of these English clubs really care about who owns and manages their beloved team? Is it really about winning and restoring the lost pride and quality of player that it takes to compete for the very top honor at this level?

Just look at what some players are earning these days.  Recently Manchester United secured a 5-year contract with striker Wayne Rooney that will give him roughly £200,000 per week! Look what it takes to put together a top-level competitive team. The game has changed and continues to become even more expensive. Someone must ultimately pay bigger player compensation packages.

Luckily, Henry and Werner bring a new sense of excitement to this aspect of the game.  With their understanding that Liverpool is in need of significant change, this could potentially be the beginning of signing more high-end players.  For them to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal, Liverpool needs the funds to do so.  This is where Henry and Werner can be of substantial assistance.

If a fan can watch his team earn 3 points every match and be in the top end of the table why would he care about who owns the club?  As long as his club is producing positive results, the ownership will not be criticized.

So it comes down to who can afford to run and manage these clubs.  The combination of superb management skills and massive amounts of wealth is the key to a dominating club.  The old days of owners seeking pride of ownership alone, is grimly faced with the stark realization of being able to support these teams, all chasing for the top spot.  Let’s face it, success brings glory and financial return.  Every year starts the same way.   Each team begins with zero wins and zero losses but the dream to win it all.

It’s Good For The Game! from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

Fifteen months on, and it would seem my conclusion has been heavily questioned. Despite not wanting to admit it, could I have been wrong? According to an independent report undertaken on behalf of FIFA, a proposed ’6+5′ rule would not breach EU rules.

What is the ’6+5′ rule? The rule establishes that at the beginning of a game, each team must field at least six players who would be eligible to play for the country in which that team plays. So for example, in each English Premier League game that Manchester United competes in, at least six of their starting eleven must be eligible to play for the England national team.

Under the EU rules on freedom of movement for workers, this would, on the face of it, represent an illegal restriction on the ability of EU citizens to move freely within the relevant industry/market. In essence, a soccer player who is an EU national might be restricted from plying his trade at a team because he is ineligible to play for the country in which that team is located. His place in the team might have to go to somebody who is eligible to play for that country. Thus, his right to freely move across the European Union might be restricted because of this rule. The EU rules on free movement were created to abolish and prevent such restrictions.

However, free movement rules can be circumvented where there is a legitimate justification behind the implementation of a restrictive provision such as the 6+5 rule. The Institute for European Affairs (INEA), which was the body responsible for FIFA’s independent report, has found that the rule does not conflict with EU law because it supports the creation and assurance of sporting competition:

“The 6+5 rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations” said INEA.

The rule provides that there would be no limit on substitutions and no limit on the number of non-national players that teams can employ. However the team would be prohibited from fielding more than five non-nationals at the start of each game. So, whilst the rule may be indirectly discriminative, the report from INEA states that the rule “merely considers entitlement to play for the national team concerned, and any possible indirect discrimination can be defended on the basis of compelling reasons of general interest”.

INEA argues that, due to the completely open nature of the market at present, young talented players are discouraged from pursuing their dreams of playing soccer for their local teams because these teams are opting to recruit foreign players. These players normally come ready-trained and often represent a sound financial investment for the clubs.

There can be no doubt that an independent report such as this will assist FIFA in its quest to implement rules such as the 6+5 rule, however it must also be said that the report holds no legal standing. The ultimate decision makers are the European Commission and the European Government.

As determined, FIFA may be to bring these rules into operation, the EU commission is equally unwavering in its position to veto any such action. It is for this reason that I maintain my original conclusion that rules of this sort will not be sanctioned by the EU authorities; they remain illegal restrictions on the free movement of workers within the EU.

Blatter’s ‘6+5’ rule is not illegal…? from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

One of the companies listed on the DOW is AIG. AIG is the shirt sponsor of Manchester United, arguably the most popular and profitable soccer club in the world. They signed a 56.5 million pound 4 year deal 2 years ago, leaving 2 years remaining. Despite AIG’s share price taking a hefty knock recently, the company and Manchester United remain confident the partnership will remain. [Untied Shirt Sponsor 'Goes Bust']

Now to a less fortunate story, with West Ham, who operates in the same league as Manchester United. West Ham has lost their shirt sponsor, XL Holidays as they collapsed into administration. They were 1 year into a 3 year deal. [West Ham suffer shirt sponsor setback after XL holiday firm collapse] West Bromich Albion is also in the market for a shirt sponsor after recently splitting with T-Mobile. When these teams met a couple of weeks ago it was the first time in the Premier League’s history that two clubs faced each other without a shirt sponsor. [Credit crisis hits English soccer as sponsors tumble] Tough times indeed.

Aside from the overall team sponsors, let’s take a look at individual sponsors. With the so-called ‘credit crunch’ and companies reducing their sponsorships, some may find it difficult in getting that deal, or even worse, you may be inked to a deal with a company that has collapsed, or at least is in administration.

So what’s the best way to avoid the above from happening to your client? Here are a few things you should take into account before signing anything:

1. Financial conditions:

- Take a look at their financial statements. Does the company have the sustainability to continue growing in the future?
- Look at a few accounting ratios, such as Debt-to Equity and Liquidity.

2. Market conditions:

- What market does the company operate in?
- Are they a leader in their field?
- Does the company operate on a regional, national, or international scale? This is also important in determining the magnitude of the sponsorship. Obviously the larger the scale, the larger the fee.
- Where is the company based?

Generally, if an offer is too good to be true, it probably is. The largest contract might not always be the best contract. By giving the company a thorough examination financially, you may prevent your client from being deprived of future earnings.

Shirt Selling? – How the current financial crisis affects your client from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

This problem has been highlighted by the recent and ongoing saga revolving around Manchester United’s Portuguese Midfielder Ronaldo. Ronaldo has been at the core of a feud between Manchester United and Real Madrid of Spain. Despite the English club’s insistence that the player is not for sale at any price, Madrid have continued in their open pursuit of a player who only recently signed a new contract in Manchester.

Manchester United reported Real Madrid to FIFA (football’s world governing body) for their public pursuit of Ronaldo. FIFA thus far has found no wrongdoing by Madrid and certainly has not penalized them, despite their inappropriate and obvious media-driven quest to unsettle the player and thus trigger a transfer. With FIFA failing to outlaw this type of behavior, the effect is not to deter the Madrid club’s actions; it will in fact encourage them.

With Ronaldo being party to a long-term contract in Manchester, and the Manchester club declaring that the player is not for sale, the story should end there. The reality, however, is that this story has continued to brew for weeks and months subsequent to Manchester’s statement that they will not sell. This is just one example of many where a player seeks a move elsewhere despite his club’s expectancy (and indeed contractual right) that he honor his contract. What does this say about player contracts in soccer? What good is it signing a player on a long term contract, expecting that he stays for that period, making preparations for the seasons ahead with that player’s contributions borne in mind, when he can leave in an instant? The fact that these transactions continue to go through clearly demonstrates the fact that player contracts in soccer are worthless (particularly to teams).

Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA, has an opinion that will only worsen the problem. When asked about clubs that make their players honor their contracts, he described such situations as ‘slavery’. Is it really slavery? Many footballers are on multi-million pound/dollar contracts, live the life of a superstar, drive nice cars, live in good houses and are in prime physical fitness. Slavery?

It is true that the average length of a player’s career is 8 years. It is also true that the European legal principle of freedom of movement for workers is generally well-respected in the European Union. Given these facts many would argue that players should be entitled to transfer to other clubs without restriction so as to assist them in earning as much financially as is possible in their short careers. However, to those who maintain this opinion I would ask what purpose player contracts in football serve. Moreover, are these contracts not failing to serve the purpose for which they were drafted in the first place (stability to teams, security in planning/preparations for seasons ahead, a commitment/statement of intent from players towards their clubs)?

Perhaps there is a wider picture to look at. The ever-increasing commercialization of sport means that money has become a decisive factor in major issues in soccer today. At the end of the day, the majority of incidents where players do not honor their contracts result from an opportunity to earn more elsewhere. Can we blame them? Not really. But we can blame the administrators of sport who are allowing these transactions to go through, often at the expense of the clubs who have little choice but to sell a player who wants to leave (even where the club clearly does not want to sell).

Clubs are given little protection. In fact it has been shown above that the governing bodies are offering zero protection to clubs. Whilst a team can technically rely on its contractual right to hold on to a player until that contract’s expiration, very few will want to keep a player who’s heart and head is elsewhere. The lack of stability in player contracts in modern-day football is a sorry state of affairs. Where will the line be drawn, and who will draw it?

Player Contracts in Soccer – A Waste of time? from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules