Removal Of Sponsor Patches May Lead To Increased Ticket Prices

reprinted from The Seattle Post-Dispatch, Thursday, September 5, 2013
 
     SEATTLE - A source speaking on the condition on anonymity admitted Wednesday that the Seattle Superbeasts may choose to raise single game ticket prices to make up for a shortfall in revenue that would occur if they do not wear sponsor patches in all fourteen regular season games.
      On Monday the UWFFL announced that a competitive disadvantage may occur if one team wearing a sponsor patch is playing another team not wearing a sponsor patch.  The Atlanta Flying Fleet, for instance, won their first two preseason games while not wearing sponsor patches, yet they added their Comfort Suites sponsor patches for their August 25 game against Birmingham and lost 64-40.
     In the UWFFL, games are decided by fan vote.  If fans are specifically voting against teams just because of the presence of a sponsor patch, then it would lead to an unfair situation whenever one team with a sponsor patch is playing another team without.
     Since wearing a sponsor patch may therefore hinder a team's performance, both on the field and in the polls, the league decided to make the wearing of the patches optional, and if a team with a title sponsor was playing a team without one, the team with a sponsor would have the option of not wearing their patches in those games.
     After meeting with their corporate partners, who in some cases have put up millions of dollars to have their image and products adorn the UWFFL teams' uniforms, they agreed that if sponsorship advertising was not worn by some teams in some games, the league would have to rebate some of the sponsorship fees that the advertising was going to generate. 
     In the case of the Superbeasts, that means a possible shortfall in revenue.
     "All I can tell you," the source stated off the record, "is that when we were approached by the league with the sponsorship program guidelines, including the increased revenue that the program would generate, we adjusted our projected profit margins accordingly.  Now with the modifications to the program, that revenue does not meet those projections.  The team's Board of Governors, however, approved an operating budget and expenditure plan for the 2013-14 fiscal year based on those projections.  The shortfall would have to be made up somewhere, and after a careful analysis of our whole operation, the simplest and easiest solution is to raise ticket prices."
     "Since season ticket holders are already locked in at their fee structure, the difference would be applied just to single game purchases.  We decided the the fairest thing to do was to just apply the rate increase to games in which the team will not be wearing the sponsor patches.  Therefore for games in which the Superbeasts are not wearing their sponsorship patches, we will see an increase in single game ticket prices of between $8-$30 per ticket."
     "We would love to keep the sponsorship patches on for all games, however we are also committed to putting the most competitive product on the field that we can.  When you tell me that we may lose a game because we are wearing a sponsor patch when our opponent isn't, then it's an easy call for me -- we lose the patches.  Unfortunately what comes with that is a decrease in revenue, which has to be made up somewhere."
     "I think if you ask real, true Superbeasts fans about that, they want to win, if it costs them an extra eight to thirty dollars a game, then 'so be it,' they'll say.  These fans deserve a championship, and we want to bring it to them.  In fact some of these fans, a few I spoke with today, I feel they are proud to do their part in helping the team.  They feel like by paying an extra $20 or so, if it helps make the team a winner, then they feel like they are doing their part."
     "If you want to blame anybody, blame the liberal voters who are opposed to sponsorship patches and vote teams down for wearing them.  These people vote on these games with an agenda, and that agenda is to removes the ad patches from the game, they don't want them in the game.  When they vote like that, in these kind of numbers, it affects the outcome of games, I think the league had no choice.  It is a shame that something as innocuous as a patch on a football uniform has to be politicized and made a pawn in this greater debate."
     "It is truly a shame, that because of this agenda, these regular joe working class Americans now have to shell out more dollars to see a football game.  It's just sad."
     Calls to the Superbeasts' PR department and general manager's office, as well as league officials, were not returned.
     The initial UWFFL plan regarding team sponsorhips indicated that all teams would wear sponsor patches in all games, however some team owners balked at that.
     Said Jeff ("The") Provo, owner of the Minnesota Mustangs on July 7, "Discord will rule Equestria before the Mustangs put a (darn) ad on their jerseys."  Shortly thereafter the league decided to make having sponsorship (and patches) optional.