All Blacks: Add AIG logo to jersey
New Zealand will emblazon a sponsor's logo on their jerseys for only the second time in their 107-year history under a deal signed with USA insurance giant AIG.
The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) said the famous black jersey would carry the AIG logo until mid-2018 under a sponsorship arrangement needed to boost cash reserves and put the Union on a sustainable footing.
"This is not a decision we have taken lightly... it is a very positive opportunity to secure the additional funds that we need to help safeguard the future of the game in this country," said NZRU chief executive Steve Tew.
While the jersey has long displayed the name of All Blacks' kit provider, currently adidas, the only other time it has featured a corporate logo was when the team was sponsored by brewer Steinlager in the 1990s.
Many New Zealanders regard the jersey as sacrosanct and the NZRU said it carried out extensive consultation before signing the new deal, the financial details of which have not been released.
AIG sponsored English Premier League club Manchester United from 2006 to 2010 but ended the deal after receiving a record $182 billion bailout from the US government at the height of the global financial crisis.
All Blacks skipper Richie McCaw backed the relationship with AIG.
"It's really flattering that a company this big has chosen New Zealand rugby to be its cornerstone sponsorship," he said. "It shows incredible respect for our traditions, heritage and record of success."
The NZRU said it cost NZ$100 million ($82 million) a year to run rugby in New Zealand and new revenue was needed.
"We are currently forecasting deficits over the coming years, which means using cash reserves in the short term to meet this. This is simply not sustainable," it said.
The All Blacks will wear the new jersey for the first time when they play Australia in Brisbane on October 20.
Comments
tuffnut says...
A little extra writing on the Black jersey isn't going to stop me supporting the ABs. Although I might watch less rugby overall if they continue to overplay/water down major competitions. I know I may have mentioned this in a previous post but I feel that there are too many first-class games in one season, meaning many teams aren't sporting their best players due to injury and I'm sure the dwindling crowd numbers in the southern hemisphere (except Argentina) is a reflection of this over-saturation.
I wouldn't want to see any teams cut from any major competitions mind you, i.e. Rebels/Force as I feel they're important for growing the game in non-rugby strong regions and have gained good support bases in a very short space of time. However, to reduce player injury and over-saturation I think the SupeRugby competition can still be shorted by at-least a few weeks, because lets face it, who cares if some middle-of-the-table SR teams don't get to face each other some seasons? Also, reduce June internationals to two tests and get rid of that dead-rubber third Bledisloe match.
Lol that's my soap box done for today.
Posted 16:03 12th October 2012
ArmchairGeneral says...
Guinness sponsoring would have been the solution.
Posted 15:22 12th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
Can't believe they've misspelled their sponsors name on their own jerseys. Correct spelling should be IRB.
Posted 15:20 12th October 2012
APV1 says...
@ Phill_Moore - I agree, it was the US verion I was meaning. As an old-fashioned English Ale fan, I find all lagers, pilsners and similar fizzy yellow drinks difficult. But Steinlager is certainly not the worst available.
Posted 15:04 12th October 2012
HighsideUK says...
The ABs are so obviously torch-bearers and trail blazers for the game it would be a crying shame if they were to suffer simply because NZ is not a big country and the NZRFU is therefore not rich.
So I'm glad this has happened.
Posted 14:33 12th October 2012
Trader2 says...
On the topic
Don't get me wrong I am quite happy with the sponorship, having long felt that the NZRFU need to make hard financial decisions and run the game like a business. It would have been great to have a Kiwi name but lets face it no NZ company would have come up with the same dollars that the yanks will be tipping in. On the bright side at least when watching the AB's I will feel I am getting some value for my premiums. (doubt that they will pay out for heart attacks at WC finals though).
On the beer
I have yet to meet a Kiwi who actually likes Steinlarger (or an Aussie who likes Fosters for that matter) both beers a brewed for (mainly) British consumption, thats probably why they taste like shite. Sorry APV1 I not sure about your "soft" comment, any beer can do that to you if you drink enough of it.
Posted 14:25 12th October 2012
Phill_Moore says...
Anybody putting Steinlager as one of the world's worst beers simply has no idea about beer quality around the world, period. Not my favourite, but quite decent when compared with the repulsive used bath water many of the biggest "breweries" in the world want to inflict on people, for money! And yes, many of those are from the US...
By the way, Budweiser is originally a Czeck beer, and a very good one at that. The US company stole the name but, worst still, changed the brew and replaced the good Czech pils for disgusting watery horse piss.
More on topic, I can see the financial benefits of the logo, especially with centralized contracts, but it still feels a bit like soul-selling... On the other hand, central contracting must be kept, almost at all costs. All other big national teams have huge logos on their jersey's, but have effectively lost, or willingly sold actually, all power over their players. So the balance is still, barely, on the positive side for the NZRFU.
Let's hope this is as far as it will go...
The clean black jersey, bar the small fern and manufacturer brand was (almost) always a highlight in a time when many teams became unrecognizable due to the amount of stuff on their jersey.
Posted 13:36 12th October 2012
lawynd says...
Why are people hot for Adidas (which at the end of the day, as the kit manufacturer, is still advertising) but not another sponsor, the same as EVERY professional sports team, in any sport, in the world? I'd have probably picked a less controversial partner than AIG but that aside, it was inevitable. Move with the times chaps...you know we've mastered the creation of fire, too?
Posted 13:24 12th October 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
Well an New Zealand brand wouldn't have afforded to pay the bills.
It's unfortunate but all us Kiwis want NZ rugby to remain top in the world and this is the way it will have to happen, Steve Tew wouldn't sell us out intentionally. Same as when they took on Adidas after Steinlager, if they keep winning then all is good. If you don't like it then go support Barcelona and their charity.
Posted 13:16 12th October 2012
Ferdie says...
scrumpoacher - I'd just say it was inevitable.
Last year the NZRU made a profit of NZ $9.6 million, that is 4.9 m GBP.
They ran at a loss in 2010. This year we've had the bail-out of the Otago Union, other unions borderline financially. And impossible to predict event the major earthquakes in Christchurch - loss of revenue and additional costs.
We've lived with adidas for some time, they are no more NZ than AIG. Previously they had the Stenlager logo see this only as positive for the sport.
Whether it's worthwhile for AIG? For the sports i watch I'd struggle to name team sponsors, last thing i pay attention to. The ITM team I support, is Tenderlink Taranaki and they play at Yarrow Stadium - it's plastered the full width of their jersey, as have previous sponsors' logos.
I'm all for sponsors - I wouldn't have got as far as I did in my chosen sport without their help - a mention here to Specialized bicycles, Brookes shoes, Orca wetsuits. Worn with pride!.
Posted 12:07 12th October 2012
stag says...
not good. pretty lousy organisation to get involved with. takes some magic from the AB brand. doing the haka with a sponsor's logo on the jersey will turn a borderline camp dancing ritual into a full on farce. sad day for rugby
Posted 11:19 12th October 2012
Mace says...
I am hugely dissapointed by this move. I for one wont be buying any merchandise with these yanks logo tarnishing our famous jersey!!! Steve Tew you need a bullet you w@nker for selling us out!!! Whats this bloody game coming to? To many rules and refs killing the game we have loved for so long. A sad sad day for NZ rugby....
Posted 11:07 12th October 2012
scrumpoacher says...
@ferdie the last statement of yours-a bit churlish dont you think? Adidas probably pay enough to provide the kit already and NZRU have done well enough without the extra money AIG have brought. So yes you can have it both ways...Could have done what Barcelona FC do and have a charity advertised-much more respect for that too...Cheers
Posted 10:59 12th October 2012
KeaJHB says...
Sad but inevitable.
Cory Jane tweeted: "Hopefully this deal keeps more players from going overseas (money wise)...."
Posted 10:58 12th October 2012
APV1 says...
AIG - "All Idiot Goons"
As I said before when this was announced a short while ago, it's about time that NZRU caught up with professional rugby.
The AB brand may be one of the most iconic (to the extend that my English step-father, who lives in Oz and doesn't even like rugby, has an AB top), but that hasn't been bringing in the revenue. Unless more people go to the matches, buy the merchandise, or they start charging more for tickets, NZRU cannot sustain losses indefinitely.
@ KiwiLad - ever had a Budweiser? I'd take a Steinlager over that rat p!ss any day. In fact drinking a simple bottle of Steinlager got me out of a very precarious situation in a bar in Aukland, so I have a soft spot for it.
Posted 10:37 12th October 2012
hybrid187 says...
Is that what its gonna look like, the one that The King is holding in the pic ?
I hope not, thats horrible.
Posted 10:37 12th October 2012
kenttaff says...
gutted. i have always admired the ab's for sticking to the old school traditional look
Posted 10:25 12th October 2012
KiwiLad says...
Trader2, what do you mean one of them??
Posted 10:23 12th October 2012
Ferdie says...
no problems with this whatsoever
if they'd changed the colour from black I'd have been less enthusiastic
this new logo is less than a third the size of what IRB allows, other teams have for more dominant logos already I don't believe it has any impact on a team's performance
The best part is - more money for rugby in new Zealand. NZRU already pour millions into development, this can only improves on that.
For anyone who considers it a sell-out: suppose you want a return to totally amateur players as well? Can't have it both ways.
Posted 09:58 12th October 2012
scrumpoacher says...
The AB brand has been sold out...Would have liked an NZ brand if it had to happen...
Posted 09:40 12th October 2012