Signs of the Times: "Rivalry Merchandise"

I guess I'm not rabid enough about college sports to have noticed this phenomenon, wherein rival college mascots are depicted on various items of merchandise as victor and vanquished.

You might expect the losing college to be upset about the violence directed its way. To the contrary, it'll be cashing in.

In the $3 billion college-logo retail market, there's growing demand for "rivalry merchandise" in which two schools allow their trademarks to appear on the same item, even if one team is being throttled, humiliated or labeled as a loser. The schools share revenue and say the products highlight the traditions of their rivalries. But getting merchandise to market can be a convoluted process as universities struggle to reconcile the lure of commerce with the boundaries of taste.

Schools say if they don't license rivalry products, fans will buy even grosser knockoffs from bootleggers. Still, decision making is inconsistent. Why did 25 colleges approve products depicting their mascots being boiled alive in soup pots, while many remain sensitive about allowing their mascots to be shown cooked on a grill?

"Sometimes their logic is elusive," says Ron Bohler, licensing director of Memory Co., Phenix City, Ala., the market leader in nonapparel rivalry products. This year, rivalry items account for 15% of its sales, up from 5% in 2002.

But don't think that colleges have sold out completely; there's still quite a bit of sensitivity employed in the licensing process:

Colleges have turned down designs in which the faces on figurines seemed too black. Memory says it came up with a "happy medium" facial color that seems neither black nor white so that no race is singled out for ridicule.

One company proposed a shirt showing a child dropping into a toilet the head of a Seminole Indian warrior, symbol of Florida State. Sherri Dye, the school's director of licensing, said no, citing in part racial sensitivities. "I told them they could drop a [football] helmet instead," says Ms. Dye.

The article by WSJ staff reporter Jeffrey Zaslow goes on to say that "the school being mocked usually earns a smaller cut than the school being celebrated because the celebrators do most of the buying."

I would think that the humiliated school would ask for a bigger cut. You know... the pain and suffering approach.

Is this a negative sign of poor sportsmanship, or is it a positive sign that we don't, after all, take ourselves too seriously? Can we expect better behavior on the field when things like this are taking place off the field? Or is this just another piece of evidence pointing to the dismal financial condition of many of our universities, and their desperate search for revenue (where much of said revenue is needed to pay their football coaches... but that's another issue entirely)?

Comments
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]









Remember personal info?