Read Sports Geek’s argument that the NFL should allow players to ‘sell’ their touchdown celebrations as advertisement opportunities, and Loyal Homer’s argument that guerilla advertising such as sponsored touchdown celebrations should not be permitted.
“He’s at the 20-yard line… the ten… the five… TOUCHDOWN! And here comes the Energizer Bunny Dance!”
Football may be a game, but the NFL is a business. Between sponsorship opportunities, the sale of team merchandise, advertising revenues, and the sale of tickets and concessions, the NFL is constantly on the lookout for ways to make a buck. In support of its players, the league has also been very generous in allowing them the private opportunity to use their name, image and likeness for personal gain. From Gatorade to Sony Televisions, it is easy find the face of NFL players in many different magazine and television ads, all in the interest of selling more products.
One line that the NFL seems reluctant to cross, though, is the allowance of corporate sponsorship during the actual play of the game.
One example is the NFL’s policy regarding corporate sponsorship of team jerseys. It is true that there are a several teams in the league who have sponsored patches on their uniforms, but those sponsorships are limited strictly to use on the practice field during training camps. The NFL does not yet seem willing to follow the lead of organizations such as NASCAR in allowing corporate sponsorships to permeate the action on the field.
The fact remains that the profitability and exposure of the NFL has made it a very appealing avenue for marketing. Corporations are always on the lookout for ways to capitalize on the game, and will often look to exploit new opportunities that take advantage of the league’s reach and marketing influence. The latest chapter in this marketing tug-of-war began during the recent game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Dallas Cowboys during an end zone celebration.
Brent Celek, tight end for the Philadelphia Eagles, caught a touchdown pass during the third quarter of the Sunday Night matchup. After catching the pass, Celek positioned himself in front of a nearby camera, and struck the “Captain Morgan” pose. It was later confirmed that Celek was participating in a promotional scheme for Captain Morgan Rum, which had reportedly pledged to make a donation to the Gridiron Greats charity (an organization designed around supporting retired NFL players) every time a player struck the same pose after a touchdown.
The NFL immediately bristled at this marketing tactic, labeling it as guerilla advertising, and banned players from participating in future stunts. With that in mind, the question posed at The Sports Debates today is: Is it good or bad for the NFL allow corporate sponsorship and celebrity endorsement of end-zone celebrations?
End zone celebrations have been going on for a long time. From the Lambeau Leap and the Ickey Shuffle to Deion Sanders’ touchdown dance, players have made a spectacle of the post-touchdown celebration. Some, such as Terrell Owens and Chad Ochocinco may take it a bit too far at times, but fans are always on the lookout for what celebration may unfold after a touchdown is scored.
In addition, the NFL already permits some in-game sponsorships, so long as they are transparent and do not draw focus away from the game itself. As mentioned by Josh Alper of Fanhouse.com, Adrian Peterson receives sponsorship money from Nike every time he touches the ball in a Nike uniform during the game.
Loyal Homer will argue that it is not a good idea for endorsements to become intermingled with the play of the game, while Sports Geek will argue that it is a wise decision for the NFL to allow this type of advertising during games.
The marriage of in-game sponsorships and end-zone celebrations seems a sure-fire way to generate sales through “touchdown marketing.” But, is it good for football, and for the NFL?
