Manchester United Away Kit for 2009-10
Here is the mockup of the new Manchester United away kit for the 2009-2010 season.
It is supposed to be based on the shirt United wore when they won the FA Cup in 1909.
Some dissatisfaction has been voiced by various fans on various sites as to the design.
They feel the red stripe going across the chest forms an arrow that blatantly points to the advertising logo of AIG and highlights this too much.
I must admit I find that highly amusing.
For a start, AIG are pulling out of the deal whereby they sponsor the shirts at the end of 2010, so why on earth would Manchester United go out of their way to make sure AIG get any extra coverage as they withdraw from the deal?
I do think on some occasions United fans go looking for problems that really are not there.
The paranoia with AIG getting the coverage on the shirts is madness.
AIG have provided about one-third of United's income for the past four years, financing things such as the purchase of Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Tevez, and Berbatov, but still they complain that AIG have a logo on the shirt. You can't have the cake AND eat it.
It became a big issue on the 50th anniversary of Munich too when the mural of the Busby Babes was erected at Old Trafford last year. This was a time to remember those who perished and to appreciate what United had lost. Yes, I know AIG had their logo at the bottom right hand corner of this mural, but so what? Who cares—this was all about Munich, Sir Matt, and the Babes.
Maybe AIG wanted to have their logo there to show they too cared and wanted to be a part of the anniversary activities. Maybe they saw it as a way to sneak in and get some high-profile advertising.
Maybe, just maybe, this was an occasion to forget AIG—an occasion for fans to remember what was important on the 50th anniversary instead of continuing the hunt for things to moan about.
AIG will be gone soon, to be replaced by Air Asia, Saudi Telecom, or Sahara. So what next?
Let's all hate India and Sahara for the way Indian children are exploited in the workplace.
Maybe we should hate Air Asia because their uniforms aren't very pretty or because they paint huge pictures of Manchester United players on their aircraft to exploit the marketplace.
If Saudi Telecom are the next unfortunate incumbent to finance Manchester United, let's all jump on the bandwagon and complain about how Saudi Arabia treats women and how they outlaw drinking and the carrying of the Christian Bible in their land.
Or might it be a good idea to accept the sponsors, take their cash, and be happy?
Their logo might be on the shirt, but it just might finance the arrival of Karim Benzema or, dare we say it, Kaka.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?