Last year, for the first time ever $($and as expected$),$ MLB allowed the teams to place the logos of a paying sponsor$/$advertiser on the sleeve of players$$ jerseys in the form of a patch. As a result, MLB jerseys now have become a new branding medium or advertising space for large corporations. Many experts now believe that NFL$,$ the last Big $4$ league without jersey sponsorship, will soon follow this trend in the near future.

In any sponsorship activity, a 'fit' is the most significant factor generating positive sponsorship outcomes. Many scholars and professionals have agreed that sponsorship, including jersey sponsorship, works best under two conditions:

First, the involved brands must have credibility or perceived expertise in the eyes of the consumers. Second, a fit between the brands should exist. A fit in sponsorship is the compilation of consumers' subjective assessments of how well a sponsor and the sponsored property$/$entity $($i$.$e$.,$ sponsee$).$ Thus, it is the perceived appropriateness of the partnership between a sponsor and a sponsee. Without a fit, there will be no transfer of positive associations from one brand to the other, and vice versa.

In sponsorship, a fit is usually generated without any efforts $($i$.$e$.,$ occurs naturally$).$ For examples, Ralph Lauren has been the official apparel sponsor for the US Olympics Team, whereas Samsung is the official sponsor of the South Korean Olympics team. These relationships make sense since the sponsor and the sponsee share the same geographic location $($i$.$e$.,$ geographical fit$).$ If Nike sponsors the FIFA World Cup, there is a fit since the two organizations are in the same industry $($i$.$e$.,$ industrial fit$).$ Finally, when Firestone became one of the official sponsors of the Indy $500,$ the fans perceived the fit since the two brands shared the same association $($i$.$e$.,$ associative fit$).$

However, a fit can be intentionally created by marketing practices such as CSR or advertising. Interestingly, in the modern sport industry, visual congruity $($visual fit$)$ is more commonly witnessed when co$-$branding occurs. In jersey sponsorship, the most common one is color congruity $-$ although there is still a large number of sponsors keeping their original brand colors on the team jerseys, some companies today modify their logo colors to match the sponsoring teams$$ brand colors. For instance, last year, New York Mets announced their uniform sponsorship patch, which featured the logo of New York$-$Presbyterian Hospital. However, many fans criticized its color scheme and the owner, Steve Cohen, also said "they're Phillie colors. They should be more Met$-$appropriate." Fortunately, Mets soon made an agreement with the hospital to change the colors of the patch, so the 'Met$-$colored' sponsor logo made a debut.

So$,$ here are discussion questions for this week:

$1)$ What do you think about the team$-$colored sponsor logos on team jerseys? Does it help creating a fit?

$2)$ Does the team$-$colored sponsor logo on a jersey make the sponsor look more sincere to support the team?

$3)$ Compared to others, a jersey is an extremely unique advertising space $-$ it is a sacred, symbolic item being purchased, worn, and displayed wherever fans reside. If your favorite team$$s sponsor decides to modify its logo colors on the jersey to match the team$$s iconic brand colors, would your purchase intention for the jersey be increased?