Controversial choice: New sponsor's logo
All Blacks fans have reacted angrily to the New Zealand Rugby Union's controversial decision to sell commercial space on the front of the world champions' jersey.
The All Blacks' official Facebook page has been flooded with comments from passionate New Zealanders who object to having the name of US insurance giant AIG splashed across the front of the side's shirt.
Unlike most international sports teams, the All Blacks' famous black attire has largely been commercial free, apart from the logo of kit supplier adidas and a short-lived deal with a local brewer in the 1990s.
But, NZRU chief executive Steve Tew said the tradition was unsustainable and the AIG deal, which will run until mid 2018, would provide a much need increase in cashflow.
However, his argument did not hold with purists who called the decision a "disgrace" and "disrespectful".
"One of the things that made the All Blacks so special, put them ahead of every other nation and world number one is the pride in the jersey," Nathan Hulme posted on Facebook.
"Now the NZRU have ruined that and what it stands for, sold out our pride and passion. Right at the heart of the all black jersey."
Peter Armitage added: "Steve Tew hang your head, you are a disgrace to the greatest team the world has ever seen."
Nico de Jong acknowledged the NZRU need to attract funds but not at the expense of the black jersey.
"It is part of our kiwi heritage, and by placing a company name on the front I think is completely disrespectful, especially considering it is a foreign company," he wrote.
Other critics targeted the choice of sponsor given that AIG required a $182 billion bailout from the US government at the height of the global financial crisis.
"It is so disappointing to see the NZRU choose such an unworthy company to partner with and even worse, give ownership of the black jersey by splashing their tainted brand over where the heart once beat," wrote Kano Wins.
John Copestake said: "You have ruined all the history and class of the black jersey by staining it with AIG on the chest. NZRU you make me sick."
Even players objected to the original proposal, forcing a reduction in the size of the logo and the removal of a white box around it.
"When we saw the size of it and the box we thought it was too big for the jersey," hooker Keven Mealamu revealed.
"So it's nice that they were respectful and able to take the box off and keep it to the size it is now."
But Tew made it clear there was no room for any further compromise.
"We respect people who decide that it's not a good idea, but we're the ones in charge of the legacy at the moment and we'll make the decisions we need to make," he said.
He added it cost about NZ$100 million ($82 million) to run rugby in New Zealand and significantly more cash was needed for the sport to survive and grow.
"It's a challenge for us, and we need some money."
The All Blacks will wear the new jersey for the first time when they play Australia in Brisbane on October 20.
Comments
APV1 says...
Facebook - the font of all knowledge. I appreciate that the internet is an exceptionally useful resource, but Facebook? Really? Wiki I can cope with, but relying on FB means that we have to agree with all those mad Saffas that want all refs murdered to death, or whatever nonsense they got all in kerfuddle about.
"The Internet is the world's largest library. It's just that all the books are on the floor." ~ John Allen Paulos (American author and Maths Professor).
It's not just about bums on seats - it can't be. Even if we say that 1/4 of the NZ population are willing and able to attend matches, that's only about 1.1 million people. And let's say they can only (afford to) attend 4 matches a year. And then look at how many are available to watch...
I know I'm plucking figures out of my backsider, but the concept is there.
The fact is NZ's population is too small.
According to the World Bank (http://tiny.cc/ggs7lw), the NZ net migration for 2007 - 2011 is about 65k. Compare that with UK (>1m), USA (almost 5m), Aus (1.1m), France (1/2m) and SA (700K).
Pacific Islands..? Samoa -16k, Fiji -29k, & Tonga -8k. That's 53k leaving the islands. I'd guess that a majority of those headed to NZ, but could be wrong.
So NZ population is increasing, but too slowly to cover the economic costs of the NZRU. So what else could they do?
And if those "fans" who shall no longer watch or support NZ again are genuine in their feelings, they were never supporters in the first place. Track them down and ask them when they last went to see a live rugby match at a stadium, if they ever have.
Globally we're all struggling financially. But if this is what it takes to keep a rugby team in NZ, accept it gratefully.
And, as Waz4before suggests, if they can be the best in the world when they're broke, now what are they going to be like..?!
Posted 11:08 15th October 2012
ruckingkiwi says...
The Kiwis and Maori jerseys are still the best out there.
Posted 11:06 15th October 2012
abfixit says...
The AIG sponsorship will go a long way to securing the players to remain in NZ and keep the domestic competition lively. There is no such thing as a free lunch and we cannot, as supporters expect players to not be paid in a way to encourage them to remain in NZ. Others have posted messages encouraging us to attend the local games and support the clubs. Totally agree. It is a fact of life now.
Posted 10:50 15th October 2012
sandal says...
We NZ rugby fans have only ourselves to blame for this. If we attended more matches it wouldn't have even been considered.Why don't we all try to go to a few more ITM and Super games from now on?
@Sincero
You have intelligence and wit. But your postings have become unrelentingly silly.
@ All Bok fans
Does pulling on the green jersey mean as much to a South African as it used to when it bore only the Springbok? I don't recall what sponsors occupy the jersey now; but does the jersey help players to grow another leg, as the old one used to?
Posted 06:52 15th October 2012
J_HDK says...
Is it only the French that's left on the IRB top 10 without a jersey sponsor? Professional sport is entirely dependent upon sponsorship and advertising. Ticket sales are a drop in the ocean. And personally I don't think it it is very intrusive, compared to when AIG sponsored the Manchester United jersey a while back
Posted 01:07 15th October 2012
Ferdie says...
Sincero - rather bitter?
Another hater, nay excuse . . .
You may note that there are no adidas stripes on an All Black jersey. Just their logo. All Blacks jersey is the only adidas sponsored team that does not have the triple stripes,
Posted 00:05 15th October 2012
Baron67 says...
another waste of my tax money!
Posted 22:42 14th October 2012
SamtheRed says...
Patron
Steve Tew said AIG was the second biggest sponsorship in rugby. Man United have just signed a shirt deal with Chevrolet worth 50 million pounds a year. That's NZ$100 million. The NZRFU won't get anywhere near that.
Posted 22:14 14th October 2012
zandberg says...
Kinsman, you are probably correct... Nevertheless, there was at least one All Black player (Mealamu) reported to be unhappy with the AIG logo. Of course the whingeing rugby-loving public in- and outside of NZ, as well as those NZ players who bemoan the inevitable, will eventually get over it. In the meantime however, some of us just want to exercise our right to free speech and voice our wistful helpless disappointment. The choice of sponsor, a company which reportedly required a $182 billion bailout, was rather unfortunate. I also note Richie McCaw has written his autobiography in which currently active rugby figures were criticised - tempting fate a bit to do that before retirement. John Smit's career (and the Springboks' fortunes, having peaked in 2009) went downhill almost immediately after a similar autobiography (at the time I also considered it a bad omen)... May of course all just be superstitious rubbish, don't take everything everybody writes here all too seriously...
Posted 19:58 14th October 2012
Euskadi says...
I'd rather not have a sponsor on the jersey but that is simply not realistic so I accept it.
I'm more interested to know what the stats will be on new jersey sales, my bet is low...very low. The "clean" jerseys will be hot property now
Posted 19:38 14th October 2012
rugbylover says...
Climb in, all you AB haters - under the guise of "Whats all the fuss........... " etc etc.
It is a great & tragic mistake.
Mr Tew has got it wrong.
Posted 17:16 14th October 2012
trianglechoke says...
I think it's a smart move, sponsors are a reality that the AB's need to pay for the bills, it's expensive to travel, pay players and all the stuff that comes from having a professional team. This is how NFL teams in the states are able to pay their players so much money. I think it's a good thing. If the purests are crying so much, why don't they start sending donation checks in every month to pay the bills.
Posted 12:54 14th October 2012
Trader2 says...
It is a worry when Facebook is the pancrea for what the Kiwi Rugby public are thinking. Its a commercial decision and as a Kiwi I can see the rationale behind it so well done to the Steve Tew and the board. I suspect that the true rugby public in NZ are also behind this move and well said @Benny. So to the naysayers grow up, suck it up and get with it, or crawl back under your rock and wait for the game to die from lack of funds. If they handle things correctly and proportion the spending correctly then rugby in NZ and will continue to develop. @Waz4before has said it all really.
Posted 12:17 14th October 2012
gazzabok says...
Now to move the Silver Fern to the sleeve and feel our pain....
Posted 11:22 14th October 2012
Ramage says...
To me the move is commercial realism and all this so called holier than thou bleating and moaning does NZ no good. Read the post that Benny has made as to me it is realistic and right on the mark. Finally to NH Saints I am amused that you think you have the answers and your point about filling the stadiums is so pathetic as to be laughable. The revenue gained by selling these final few seats is not going to bring in the revenue that this sponsorship will. The last time I looked it was the NZRFU who is running rugby in NZ and not you thank goodness. If I might also add doing a pretty good job as well. So go sort out your Saints and the English RFU as they need all the help they can get.
Posted 10:00 14th October 2012
StunTheMullet says...
Resigned rather than angered might be more apt.
Though shame the logo couldn't be on the sleeve, shorts or gruts only.
Posted 08:59 14th October 2012
cuw3100 says...
I can only imagine the spite... after seeing some of the Hineken Cup Team Kits :)
there is a certain calmness about the all black and little else kits hmmmm
Posted 08:50 14th October 2012
fattysock says...
As one of my mates said on the issue... I'd rather have that logo on the jerseys, than have the "No overseas based players" rule relaxed.
I don't love it, but still accept it... and am kinda proud we held out for so long. On that note, foes anyone know which country was the gird to have a jersey sponsor and when/who it was etc??
Posted 08:32 14th October 2012
Jediboy says...
Some peope need to get in the real world!!!
NZ has created its own legend here and people have lapped it up. It's a rugby shirt at the end of the day, no more sacred than anyone else's.
I've read elsewhere about New Zealanders who will stop supporting the ABs now. Seriously?? Because of a shirt sponsor?? Get your priorities right.
I've always respected the ABs as a team, but some of this nonsense and arrogance (frim fans) chips away a that respect.
I don't always like the England shirt, or the fact that they wear boots of ll the colours of the rainbow, but I always 100% behind the team. That's what being a supporter is about.
Posted 08:32 14th October 2012
rugbyheim says...
If NZers or every other non NZer AB's fan dissaprove over the new sponsorship deal with the NZRFU, then perhaps the A.I.G should've just given the $100M USD to the likes of Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji instead.They wouldn't be upset or offended at having 3 LETTERS on their jerseys!!
Posted 07:19 14th October 2012