Sound and Fury

So the proposed marketing deal between MLB and Sony to put small red-and-yellow webbing logos on the bases during the weekend of June 11-13 has fallen through. That was fast -- fast enough that Commissioner Bud Selig had already put the kibbosh on the deal before all of the pundits even had time to formulate proper responses. Eric Neel gave it a half-hearted go on ESPN, and while I generally love his writing, you could tell that his heart wasn't really in it: he advocates forming a big posse and taking it to the streets as a demonstration of displeasure with MLB's avarice. Well, shit, they were practically flipping cars over and burning down businesses in Detroit when the news was announced -- no one needs an excuse for a riot.

The response that Rob Neyer formulated on the subject disappointed me a little, too. Neyer's brutal as ever in dismantling MLB President Bob DuPuy's preposterous claim that outfield signage/ advertising enhances the experience of watching a ballgame, but his basic message is that the message MLB is sending with a money grab is damaging to the kids. But Rob, your son doesn't care about the intersection of commerce and ethics as it relates to MLB -- he just wants to see Spider-Man in five weeks. The children of America would be thrilled to see their favorite players dress up like Spider-Man for a weekend and horse around. Don't bring the kids into this; that old Roger Angell "I pine for the days when the pure-hearted game of baseball was played on the sandlots" saw is just boring.

My main man Gobo thinks Ralph Nader and the rest are making too big of a deal about nothing, though: "I just don't care if there are ads on the bases, or on the field, or on the players' jerseys, or whatever. It's all gonna happen eventually. I'd much rather have the team owners (in any sport) trying to squeeze out extra money that way than by adding playoff rounds or moving teams. Those things actually compromise the game, the ads just look silly until we get used to them. These things are much more common in Europe and especially Japan, where teams are named after sponsoring companies rather than cities."

And he's sort of right -- Europeans are more inured to the idea of corporate sponsorship, because advertising is everywhere. I watched shampoo commercials in the middle of a tram in Amsterdam and looked around to see if anyone else was irritated by this Orwellian bombardment -- they weren't. There is a growing consciousness to this sort of thing, though, if you consider the movement to scale back on advertising in the European stock car circuit. The most analogous example here in the States is, well, NASCAR and Richard Petty's STP logo is a distant blur from the nosebleed seats. The root of Gobo's argument is that it's ok as long as MLB isn't sticking it to the fans.

But MLB is already all about sticking it to the fans, so it's a reductive argument. I will (somewhat begrudgingly) acknowledge that licensing and marketing deals are a necessity to keep the sport afloat. I'm even ok with the idea of corporate branding and stadium naming rights, because it's stealth marketing. But there's a huge, huge disconnect between what happens off and on the field within the microcosm of the professional sports area -- you could (with some effort) tune out the advertising that's all around you and simply concentrate on what's happening on the field, though that's an impossibility if your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man has left his sticky fingers all over 1st, 2nd and 3rd base. It's all about where you choose to draw your line in the sand. This is the same reason why I don't necessarily object to crass product placements in movies, but why I will steadfastly refuse to go to a movie theater that shows commercials before the previews. I don't like the idea of paying 20 bucks to see a game and having to be subjected to MLB teams padding their coffers in such an overt and repellent way. It's a personal choice, but that's my line.