Adidas sponsors Paul McBeth

[onemilemore]

I was surprised too. When I went to Oak Grove yesterday, I expected to see PM decked out in head to toe Adidas shwag, especially after all the hubbub surrounding his new deal. But the only Adidas he was wearing were on his feet. Not even and Adidas on his socks. And I'm sure he's only wearing what he's contracted to wear, otherwise there's no incentive for Adidas to offer him any more.

I also have wondered for a while why a player of his stature would ever show any logos that he wasn't being compensated to show. In absolute terms, if a player like PM is wearing a logo of a company that is not compensating him, it's like giving away free advertising. If he ever gets an agent, that'll stop.

Hard to find completely unbranded athletic clothing, though. Plus, I could see him cherry-picking certain brands in the hopes that they might consider sponsoring him since he's already wearing it.

We'll see if any of his fashion choices change at the Memorial, a much larger stage. In the meantime, I'm going to shower off the stench that comes with overanalyzing a pro disc golfer's clothing.

 

[THUGNIFICENT763]

Bwahahahaha

 

[dehaas]

Anybody notice the 3 stripes on the back of the DGWT hat McBeth is wearing in his Facebook post?

 

[Lewis]

Well a lot of the top American pros did go over to Europe last year. A lot of them are not going to all of the top tournaments in Europe this year because the payouts are not deep and the tournaments are in different months so this makes it hard for them to play all of the events.

The problem isn't how deep the payouts go, it's the size of the payout pool of cash being distributed that is the real issue. Deeper pools would only dilute the opportunity of the guys consistently in the top 10 from having any semblance of a career. Let's be honest, any of these guy making less than $1K a week on tour are scraping by (once you account for how much travel actually costs).

To me the obvious reason for pro disc golfers not to fly across the Atlantic is the price of a round trip flight. Staying "across the pond" for several tournaments in a row would help, but you could travel across either continent by bus several times for less than the price of one transatlantic airplane trip. There just isn't enough money in any tournament on any foreign continent to make short-term financial sense. On the other hand, playing in Germany probably helps if you want an Adidas sponsorship.

 

[Halcón]

So here we are at the Memorial and McBeth is wearing Puma. ???

 

[corin_brown]

So here we are at the Memorial and McBeth is wearing Puma. ???

Yup. I guess $50k doesn't buy you as much exclusivity as it used to.

 

[Halcón]

That's what I'm saying.

 

[KGroff25]

Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Trickle down economics doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a populist political term used to characterize economic policies as favoring the wealthy or privileged. There is no "trickle down" economics as defined by economists; the term is almost exclusively used by critics of policies with other established names.[1] It is usually associated with criticism of laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics.

The term originated in United States politics.[2]:27-28 It has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

Supply-Side Economics does have a lot of legitimate economic research and historical data to show that it can be very effective at achieving growth. Whether it is the preferred method for achieving growth is a normative argument and therefore a matter of opinion (I'm not a fan personally.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Criticisms

Sorry for the drift, but seeing the term "Trickle-down economics" thrown around like it actually means something is a bit of a pet peeve.

 

[DanJon]

So here we are at the Memorial and McBeth is wearing Puma. ???

Super funny considering that the founders of adidas and puma were brothers and had a falling out.

 

[Halcón]

Super funny considering that the founders of adidas and puma were brothers and had a falling out.

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

 

[tbird888]

^Not ironic

 

[Halcón]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

 

[lyleoross]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony

Damn funny! Would it be ironic that AM wrote a song using verbiage to make a point and didn't understand what that verbiage meant....

 

[lyleoross]

Trickle down economics doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics



Supply-Side Economics does have a lot of legitimate economic research and historical data to show that it can be very effective at achieving growth. Whether it is the preferred method for achieving growth is a normative argument and therefore a matter of opinion (I'm not a fan personally.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Criticisms

Sorry for the drift, but seeing the term "Trickle-down economics" thrown around like it actually means something is a bit of a pet peeve.

Depends on your definition of growth. For sure when corporate paid economists talk about it, it works! But when academic economists talk about it, it's a lot less clear. When economists that work for unions or are sponsored by institutions more interested in the poor and middle class look at it, it's an abysmal failure.

The notion that the rich use their money to do anything other than to make more money for themselves seems a bit of a reach. That is, supply side economics works for the rich, but pretty much not for anyone else. We know this because, well, there's a reason why everyone is mad as a wet hen about their economic security right now. And that's the reason why disc golf courses aren't more like ball golf courses.... You knew I'd get there eventually.

 

[KGroff25]

Depends on your definition of growth. For sure when corporate paid economists talk about it, it works! But when academic economists talk about it, it's a lot less clear. When economists that work for unions or are sponsored by institutions more interested in the poor and middle class look at it, it's an abysmal failure.

The notion that the rich use their money to do anything other than to make more money for themselves seems a bit of a reach. That is, supply side economics works for the rich, but pretty much not for anyone else. We know this because, well, there's a reason why everyone is mad as a wet hen about their economic security right now. And that's the reason why disc golf courses aren't more like ball golf courses.... You knew I'd get there eventually.

That is why I simply said it has been effective at achieving growth. It has. At least in short term measures.

Most economists tend to agree that growth in GDP is not the only thing we should strive for. Income inequality is obviously another of many metrics to watch. Supply side economics indeed does not do anything to improve income inequality.

There's also a lot of debate about whether supply side actually helps with long term growth. There seems to be a history of bubbles following implementation of supply-side policies. I personally would sacrifice some growth to see a more stable economy.

 

[dashiellx]

That is why I simply said it has been effective at achieving growth. It has. At least in short term measures.

Most economists tend to agree that growth in GDP is not the only thing we should strive for. Income inequality is obviously another of many metrics to watch. Supply side economics indeed does not do anything to improve income inequality.

There's also a lot of debate about whether supply side actually helps with long term growth. There seems to be a history of bubbles following implementation of supply-side policies. I personally would sacrifice some growth to see a more stable economy.

Take it to the politics sub-forum....

 

[VictorB]

Since PMcB is sponsored by Adidas, I was really surprised to see him wearing a Nike shirt today.

 

[Halcón]

Since PMcB is sponsored by Adidas, I was really surprised to see him wearing a Nike shirt today.

Just on principle alone it's a bad move. Even if, as all of you say, Adidas is just giving you shoes, you represent your sponsor. Buy some polos with their logo.

*Unless of course "Soon" means something will be unveiled for the DGWT. Who knows.

 

[tbird888]

You're paid to be a billboard, not the other way around. If Adidas wants him in their products from head to toe, it's their responsibility to provide it to him (whether by store credit or however they agree on it), and it would definitely be in his contract. It's a paycheck, not a family. Fulfill your contract. Until Paul's breaking it, he's doing what he's supposed to.

I'm not going to pay my company money for the pleasure of doing development work. I do my job and go home. Paul's doing the same.

 

[sidewinder22]

Just on principle alone it's a bad move. Even if, as all of you say, Adidas is just giving you shoes, you represent your sponsor. Buy some polos with their logo.

*Unless of course "Soon" means something will be unveiled for the DGWT. Who knows.

That totally defeats the purpose of being sponsored. If Adidas wanted Paul to wear their polos and slacks then they would have given them to him and put it in the contract, it doesn't cost the company that much. It's a pretty weak sponsorship, so can't really blame Paul for so called "weak" representation and likely has no contractual obligation. He is sponsored by Innova, but not wearing their polos or slacks.