Curse of sponsorship - AIG and Manchester United.

[abqmufc]

November 2005, Mobile phone giant Vodafone cut short a four-year shirt sponsorship deal with Manchester United and switched its allegiance to European's premier club competition, the Champions League.

The world's largest mobile phone company by revenue and Britain's most famous soccer club said the deal, worth about 9.0 million pounds ($15.5 million) per year, would end two years early at the end of the 2005/2006 season. Ironically, United at that time were in danger of missing out on the knock-out stages of the Champions League, a major money-earner for the club, for the first time in 10 years this season. United did miss out on the next round of the Champions League. The news of Vodafone dropping its sponsorship also came five days after United captain Roy Keane departed in mid-season after 12 years at the club. United was taken over by American billionaire Malcolm Glazer the same year and a spokesman for the Glazer family said it was 'extremely comfortable' with Vodafone's decision to 'change the priority of its marketing strategy'. It was shaky ground at United’s home ground Old Trafford – ‘the Theatre of Dreams’. In the time following Vodafone’s decision, United had many suitors despite its lack of “success” on the pitch. Internet-casino giant, Mansion.com was a heavy suitor. Mansion.com was not chosen and they now are the sponsor for Tottenham Hotspur (Spurs). Manchester United decided on AIG, American Insurance Group as the new sponsor. The contract is a four year deal worth nearly $25 million annually when signed in 2006. The sponsorship will expire in May 2010.

Instantly the American market noticed the sponsorship via AIG television commercials aired during United matches – “AIG proud sponsor of Manchester United.” It even found its way onto to spots outside Manchester United matches and soccer only channels. Due to United’s double domestic titles (2006/08 2007/08) bringing their total to 17 and last season’s European Champions League crown, and this year’s (cough cough) FIFA World Club Championship this 9 inch by 4 inch ‘piece of real estate’ on United kits (match jerseys) was worth a lot of money. United is the most watched sporting team in the world…and if not they are darn close to it. In the past three seasons United has seen great success on the pitch that most teams dream of. United supporters and persons affiliated with the club expect such success.

The sponsorship of United goes beyond a couple TV commercials and the player’s kits – AIG is on all things United. Bed linens, replica kits for all ages, track suit (sweat pants), slippers, dog food bowls, jewelry, fine art, etc, etc. To be a sponsor of United is an honor. United’s history demonstrates it. The clubs success endures it. The character of manager, players, and staff live it. The fans quit simply consider United their religion. In my time-zone (mountain time zone), I am up often at 5 AM on the weekend to catch a match live, and during the week I may have to take a long lunch just to see a European match twice a month. The season is 10 months, August to May. To see a game live is an experience most dream of…but every match close to 78,000 fill the stadium that is lined with AIG. Recently I am ashamed to wear my team’s kit or merchandise due to the fact the club’s crest is 3 inches by 4 inches. The Nike logo is 2 x 1. The AIG logo is 9 x 4. This past week I was on board an airplane to Kansas City, MO I was asked by a passenger and flight attendant “why was I wearing an AIG shirt”. To be fair I had a cardigan sweater on. Other times it is just an odd stare by someone. But the impression the company, AIG, gives people today makes it uncomfortable to wear a club’s merchandise. It takes too long to explain why football teams and American Soccer teams have corporate sponsors to a non fan. I am certain I am not alone in my experience.

This past winter AIG announced it would not renew its sponsorship with Manchester United Football Club. However, AIG is under contract till the end of the 2009/10 season – May 2010. Since the economic “situation” with AIG (see global media) the sponsor has be called into question to put it mildly. Both club and sponsor claim that the contract will be seen through and the final payment will be made before the start of next season, August 2009. Today I learned that U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., stated she wants to make sure federal money allotted to AIG is not going as part of its sponsorship deal with Manchester United. According to the UK’s Telegraph, due to a pre-season tour in July that takes the club to Germany and China Nike has already printed merchandise for next season which begins in August. The merchandise says AIG, as do the kits/uniforms for next season. United still plays with AIG on its kits/uniforms, and plan to till the current season ending May 2009. From my understanding, if AIG changes names (AIU) and the club needs to reprint merchandise and match kits/uniforms it will be done at the sponsors expense. I see two options, one option having a few choices to select from. First, nothing is done and United and the club sells merchandise and wears match kits that say AIG. Second the match kits and merchandise drop AIG. The next step would be the choice. I see two options that benefit the club. According to a contract I assume that the company is legally bound to pay for any changes if they stay the sponsor. They are probably bound to be the sponsor if they exist. Congress and the President seem determined to keep AIG in existence. Therefore, allow the club to either drop a sponsor all together for the term of the contract effective immediately. This allows the club to have kits/uniforms and merchandise like ‘it used to be’, before corporate sponsorship. Most recently United wore retro kits marking the 50th anniversary of the Munich Air disaster in February 2008. The kits were of the same style as 1958. The last modern United team to be void of sponsor on their kit was in the 1970s.

If the club must have a sponsor on the kit/uniform and merchandise then allow the club to follow Barcelona Football Club (Spain)’s precedence and have a charity on the match kit/uniform and its merchandise. Barcelona FC actually pays UNICEF to have UNICEF.ORG on its kit and merchandise. Why not allow United to select a charity to wear and be seen by millions for the next 12 months. Personally it is shameful to see our team playing with AIG on their chest. A reasonable solution is to allow payment from AIG (probably via bailout dollars) to Manchester United for the final installment of the contract. However, ban AIG or any future name it becomes from displaying itself on Manchester United.

[jakefrep]

1. Fortunately, I have plenty of Sharp and Vodafone gear..

...to tide me over until the AIG shitstorm passes.

[abqmufc]

3. me too

I still relish the Vodafone kit that was the last Umbro version. The "sports wool" sure is nice on snowy days like we are having today in Albuquerque. I just think (as a half hearted joke) owners of AIG United gear should list its value and then submit a bill to the government in hopes of bailout money.

[Upton]

2. I'd be uncomfortable wearing a MU shirt

no matter who was on it. United is disgusting..the UK's version of the Yankees, always attempting to buy themselves success. One can only hope their recent loss of form will continue.

[abqmufc]

4. and a goomer is better than a Manc how???

[Upton]

5. Hey...nice effort over the weekend

at Craven Cottage...old man Scholes should have learned by now you don't handle the ball in the penalty area. Of course that follows the humiliating defeat at the hands of Liverpool, at Old Trafford no less.

I put United and Chelski on about the same level..I don't consider trying to buy success something to be admired.

[nickgutierrez]

6. At least United develops some of their own players.

The same can't be said for Chelsea.

[Upton]

7. That's true

but few feature as starters. Players like Ronaldo, Berbatov, Ferdinand, Rooney, Tevez and Van der Saar have all been bought.

It's not that other clubs don't buy players, it's just that when a new hot commodity surfaces it's always the same clubs in the running for his services..United, Chelsea, Real and Barca.

[nickgutierrez]

9. Yeah. I'm a Fulham fan, actually...

...because, for a couple of years, that's where the American players tended to end up when they took off to England - Bocanegra, McBride, Dempsey, etc. Dempsey is having a pretty good season.

United seem to be the most tolerable of the big four, to me. Liverpool lost me when they pushed for "their" Champions' League spot after finishing 5th in the league (even if they did win the competition that season), the fact that Arsenal can put out whole teams completely devoid of English players annoys me, and I don't like how Chelsea screwed over Mourinho, who I actually do like. That leaves Man U, if I've got to choose an English team to follow in Europe.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Agree. Chelsea's not far behind. Makes Arsenal look good.

[T_i_B]

10. This is a big problem for sports teams

Man U being very high profile and filthy rich anyway are not too badly off but West Ham have had big troubles with their shirt sponsors going but this season and in the lower leagues where cash is tight it can get even more hairy.