Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stirs

Even though it should not make a difference

39 posts in this topic

CWG, as usual, you bring so much to any conversation.

Underarmour for instance. Seems like it is marketed solely to young males. I would think they might let their sponsorship ride out, but not renew.

Is it right? No, but if their audience doesn't connect, then they would possibly be doing something counter productive for the brand. Nike, on the other hand, has a much broader appeal and I could see them making big money from continuing to embrace the athlete.

Just thinking out loud about how it might play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are thinking out loud about guys wearing Underarmour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are thinking out loud about guys wearing Underarmour.

and your problem with it is......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just an observation, there's no need to get defensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I just noticed that in the locked thread concerning gay athletes you mentioned me and my bunched up shorts as well, which I will take as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have no problem with it. Whether it was Cam Newton or any other player... I'd still buy/wear his jersey.

I don't think there will be any implications as far as sponsorships unless it's positive... I think a lot of companies would flock to that player. I do think there would be a lot of bashing by fans of opposing teams... a LOT, and most of it would be totally inappropriate.

I don't always agree with stirs, and hardly ever agree with cwg, but at least stirs is just asking questions and trying to have a discussion... cwg you're just being a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't always agree with stirs, and hardly ever agree with cwg, but at least stirs is just asking questions and trying to have a discussion... cwg you're just being a dick.

Welcome to Tinderbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cam sponsored by a coal mining company, the Southern Baptist, Hobby Lobby, or Chick-fil-a? If not, he's proably fine as most other companies aren't run by troglodytes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, despite CWG and Panthro, let's continue.

My opinion would be that if this person is a starter, that shoe deals, who's prime target is young males, might go away, with the possible exception of Nike. But, they might be replaced with more lucrative deals in other areas.

From the locked thread, I can see I was correct in my ascertion about shirts possibly falling off. I figure it might be a reflection of society like the vote last year.

One other area that might be interesting to discuss might be the face of the franchise. If Aaron Rogers or Cam Newton were the one. How would the face of the franchise be marketed?

In my opening statement and thread title, I said it should make no difference, but there will be some fallout, just wondering what it would look like to begin with.

And Panthro/CWG, keep you "I might suck cock" comments to a minimum.

Not sure where I ever said you or anyone else did. I was referring to people that think its a choice to be gay...as in waking up daily and making a choice not to be gay....

For the first time in history the majority of Americans are for gay marriage. It has increased a percentage point per year since 2004 and is now at 51%.

While some of the small minded people might not buy their jersey I would think more people would swarm to them in support.

It would impact the NFL positively all the way down to youth sports....it crushes the inbred redneck stereotypes and opens the door to all football loving kids to play a sport they love without fear or judgement.

If you think a company would pull endorsements you are crazy...the back lash to that company would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a dick, I'm making the point, like you did, that nothing would change that would affect anyone here at all. It's stirs own issues that are in discussion here, not the actual idea of a openly gay NFL player.

OK I just do it in a dickish way, because it's more fun than attempting to have a rational discussion with someone as off the rails as stirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites