Yeah the notes about the minor leagues are a fair point about taking a short-term-financial view rather than an overall-health-of-the-game perspective. I generally prefer businesses to be long-term greedy rather than short-term greedy (because ones who are neither are not around for very long), and Manfred has occasionally shown inclination to do so (see e.g. the labor deal).IDK what to tell you. For quite a long time, but accelerating during the Manfred administration, MLB and its owners have done everything in their power to extract every penny that they can from the game. In rare occasions (like expanded playoffs) it's helped the game, but in a majority of cases, it's actively hurt the game (contracting the minor leagues, getting rid of the last ten [or so] rounds of the draft, limiting the amount of call-ups in September). It seems that whenever they make a decision on "improving the game" they look at the bottom line first and ignore the ripple effect that comes with a move.
Nike wanted to put their swoosh on the sleeves of the uniform like they do for the NFL, MLB said that for an extra couple of million they'll put it on the chest.
FTX wants to advertise on umpire uniforms? Go for it. Who cares if it's basically a Ponzi scheme that's going to crater less than a year after they enter into this agreement.
Letting advertisers dictate where they can put their ads is just another example of the tail wagging the dog.
I'm glad that it doesn't bother you, quite truthfully, I'll get used to this (just like I said in my first post) but what caused my reaction is just how blatant and unabashed they are about shoving it in our faces. Next time you watch a game, check out how many different ads there are behind home plate, on the mound, on the umpire's uniform, on the score bug and now two more on the uniforms. It's an assault. How much is too much?
I guess the first things I think about when considering deals like this are:
(1) What are the historical perspectives? I think about how much more-intrusive the billboard and signage advertising used to be in ballparks, and how much more small-bore. With outdoor / highway billboards, it got to be too much for people in the 1960s and Lady Bird Johnson campaigned to limit it and there was just a general cultural receding of outdoor advertising after that. I think there is such a thing as people recognizing what is too much, when advertising is over-saturated and is past the point of diminishing returns.
(2) What do I actually care about, and does this impact it? What I care about are the players playing the game, and having it be an entertaining game. The forthcoming rule changes under Manfred, and even the ones preceding that for stuff like "no more takeout slides, but also no more neighborhood play on double plays", have given him a lot of credibility in my eyes to tinker with things and improve them rather than fucking them up. Bud Selig largely could've fucked up a lemonade stand. So, do uniform patches impact how the players play? Not to my understanding. Do they impact the visual attractiveness of the game? Does it change anything about it as an entertainment product? Not that I can see. I don't care if Xander just slid into Second Base Sponsored By Fidelity, let the announcers say whatever they need to say.
So by those standards, the fact that it was FTX advertising on umpire sleeves and not, I dunno, AT&T, was of no concern to me. It didn't draw my eye, because it's not what I look at. I guess if it does draw the eye of others (which, ya know, advertising is supposed to do!), that would be useful information. But I just assume that most of us filter it out like so many spam phone calls.