[Hypocritical] branding rules:
"except for sponsorship branding"
"sponsor may not be a soccer club, which is not recognized by FIFA"
"No team may display banners, posters, or other advertisement
of any soccer entity other than the registered club"
On a cursory overview of the logos below; whose priority was in mind when these very targeted rules were presented? Are we so naive to believe that [quote from CBC article] "It's just far easier to have a simple rule … and make it universal for everyone..."?
"Universal" enough to cover alcohol, tobacco, political, religious influences? And distinguish it from social, cultural, neighbourhood community and commercial entities? Or to satisfy the pocket books of financially interested clubs by excluding others?
So, today the rationale is: no unrecognized FIFA soccer club or soccer entity. Their problem seems to be with the words soccer or club in the entity's name.
What about tomorrow? A year from now say, a Somali, Ukrainian, Rohingya, Colombian, Uyghurs, etc. community organization decides to have sports related activities to help welcome New Canadians. Then, because of their success and hard work in organizing these activities, decide to enter teams into "sanctioned soccer" and compete alongside the best of the best? Not on a separate league [like they are proposing]; a single league where everyone plays everyone else equally and earns their spot equally? No one is asking for charity here. Can they wear their community logos then?
If these rules are at such time further revised, then we will now their objective is not as harmless as they want you to believe. People, entities will then have a case for human rights; for commercial rights; heck, sports rights.
(1) A logo is part of their identity
(2) New rule soccer dispute
(3) Jan. 24, 2023 full 30 min. CBC Newscast
