Army of GOD wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:It's their teams, they reserve the right, and they need the money to maintain the profitability of the soccer team (which ain't cheap, dawg).
I agree. That's why I'm not passing legislation disallowing them to do it.
The reason why I dislike it is because it's not aesthetically nor intellectually pleasing. The logos do a poor job at blending in with the uniforms and I very much dislike how a third party corporation insists on advertising in such a way.
I don't see why you think my disdain for such a thing is irrational. It's not like I say it's irrational for you to not like a certain painting or a musical artist.
What is irrational, however, is comparing religion to sports in the United States. Essentially, if you're saying that that comparison is ok, then if I was to object Microsoft from putting its logo on Stonehenge, apparently I am now a follower of the religion "ancient monuments". My, or most Americans, love of sports has no resemblances of popular religions. You can interpret whatever you want from American sports to symbolize a concept from religion, but honestly I would rather you just not jerk off.
Ohhhh, this is a B&M session on the ickyness of advertisements on soccer uniforms!
I mean, sure, it's not aesthetically/intellectually pleasing to you, because "appeal to emotions." There's nothing wrong with that, nor does it really lead anywhere, but that's not all that you said...
What's with this "sell out" mentality?
"-the fact that soccer teams think it's cool to sell out by having company logos on their uniforms."
So, if the logos weren't on uniforms, they wouldn't be sell-outs? Or does receiving funds from a corporation make one a sell-out? Where do you draw the line?