OK, i can sort of see that point of view.
I disagree with it as i think the point of selling advertising space is to get money. If it was about anything else then EiTC would be on our shirts and nothing else. (akin to what Barca did)
Considering we have just replaced a beer company with an online betting company as our main sponsor - a child friendly gaming/cartoon company doesn't seem that bad to me.
By the way, Rovio as a game maker may have seen a decline - but the IP of angrybirds far, far surpasses that now. It was only last week they were looking at a billion dollar IPO. The only downtick for them was when they failed to get on board with the IAP model and everybody overtook them. That's all small beans to them now though.
They would have had meetings with most of the clubs in the premier league. Found out what each one was after as a sponsorship package and then decided what we were asking for compared to our exposure/TV appearances suited their budget. Nothing more, nothing less.
If they had a £10m budget for a sponsorship deal they would be on the arms of United. Simple as that.
Yep I agree, if we're concerned about brand image when it comes to sponsors then I'm sure SportPesa the Kenyan betting company is a bigger concern. Not sure where I stand because I sort of think they go hand in hand - as you mention above when you reference rovio's budget. The bigger you are the more you can demand etc.
I don't particularly like just seeing it as ad space but clearly it isn't a concern for those in charge.
That said, I'm glad we didn't just totally not get one at all, which I wouldn't have been surprised about really.