Why you will never see sponsors on England or USMNT's shirt: The surprisingly simple reason

The governing body of world football, FIFA, has a fairly simple stance on national team shirt sponsorship: it's banned. The FIFA equipment regulations state: “All advertising by sponsors on any element of match clothing is used or introduced into the stadium during official games is banned.”

That's pretty definitive. No squeezing in that online casino you like to bet on, or whatever upstart energy drink is hot right now. It applies across the board, from the World Cup final to a friendly between two lower-ranked nations.

But why? Is it a sudden surge of puritanical spirit within FIFA HQ? Unlikely.

The most logical explanation lies in a careful balancing act: protecting their own lucrative sponsorship deals. FIFA rakes in billions from official partners like Coca-Cola, Adidas, and Visa. Allowing individual national teams to sport their own sponsors on their jerseys would dilute the impact of these global partnerships, potentially costing FIFA a fortune.

Imagine a World Cup final between Brazil and Germany. If Brazil's shirt prominently featured a rival sportswear brand to Adidas, the official tournament sponsor, it would be a marketing nightmare for FIFA. All of a sudden, all of the advertising around the pitch becomes less valuable. Essentially, FIFA wants to ensure that their official partners receive maximum exposure during their flagship tournaments.

It's a classic case of protecting the golden goose.

While match jerseys remain pristine and sponsor-free, national teams can display their partners on training gear and warm-up attire. This creates a bizarre dichotomy: players sporting a clean, iconic jersey during the game, and then transforming into walking billboards during the pre-match preparations.

You'll often see players clad in jackets and training tops plastered with logos of various sponsors. This loophole allows national teams to generate some commercial revenue without compromising FIFA's sponsorship arrangements.

It's a compromise, albeit a somewhat awkward one. It allows teams to appease their sponsors and boost their coffers, while still adhering to FIFA's regulations for official matches.

During a friendly against Ghana in March, the England squad were spotted in white tracksuits emblazoned with the name of a popular soft drink. The same can be said of post-match interviews.

It's worth noting that there are rules governing sponsor placement and size even on training apparel, ensuring they don't overshadow the national team crest or interfere with the overall aesthetic.

The decision to ban shirt sponsorships comes at a significant cost for national teams. Consider the sums involved. Real Madrid, for example, generates a reported £62 million annually from their shirt sponsor. Imagine how much a global powerhouse like France, the reigning world champions, could command for similar exposure. They have to be content with their Nike kit deal, estimated at $56 million per year until 2026. While this is a substantial sum, it pales in comparison to the potential revenue from a dedicated shirt sponsor.

This lost income could be reinvested in grassroots football development, player training, or improving infrastructure. It's a debate that often surfaces, with some arguing that the benefits of increased funding outweigh the perceived loss of tradition or purity. For smaller nations, the lack of shirt sponsorship revenue can be particularly detrimental. It puts them at a significant disadvantage compared to wealthier countries with more established commercial partnerships. Ultimately, the decision rests with FIFA, who prioritize their own sponsorship interests above the individual financial gains of national teams.

There is one prominent and notable exception to clubs financially exploiting the space on their jerseys. From 2006 to 2011, Barcelona sported the UNICEF logo on their shirts, a move widely praised as a powerful statement of social responsibility. This wasn't a traditional sponsorship deal, however. Barcelona actually paid UNICEF a substantial sum each year to display the logo, rather than the other way around. It was a groundbreaking initiative that demonstrated the potential for football to promote positive social causes.

Although the UNICEF deal was later replaced with a paid sponsorship from Qatar Foundation, the Barcelona-UNICEF partnership remains a significant moment in football history. Ironically, Barcelona didn't have a sponsor on their shirts for many years before their deal with UNICEF, so in some ways a sponsorless shirt is also part of the club's tradition.

The numbers spoke for themselves. In 2005, without sponsors, Barcelona sold 900,000 shirts. With UNICEF emblazoned on the chest, shirt sales grew to 1.1 million. With Qatar Airways, they hit 1.2 million. This illustrates the impact that a meaningful or innovative partnership can have on fan engagement and merchandise sales.

While traditional sponsorships are driven by commercial gain, collaborations with charitable organizations can resonate with fans on a deeper level. So, while you may never see "Visit Rwanda" or "Paddy Power" emblazoned across Harry Kane's chest during a World Cup match, remember that the absence of sponsors is a deliberate decision, driven by FIFA's desire to protect its own commercial interests.

Whether that's a good thing for the game as a whole is a debate that will likely continue for years to come. But don't bet on seeing it change any time soon.