I agree, it's a poor way to do business but the PR agency has done it's job here. This story is in the national press with a positive (not in all eyes) spin on Masuri. Masuri will get more sales due to this.
Out of interest, in their statement they said the 6 England guys "choose" to wear it. Does anyone know if that's true or not? Similar to Stretton Fox, do they just choose what they think is the best even if their sponsors want them to wear something else? Or is it a case of filling up the helmet with money and passing it on?
Like bats, sponsors do not really care as long as their brand is plastered on it.
However, Masuri is a brand in itself. Adidas wanted the Ayrtek helmet as their 'brand' helmet, instead of innovating their own, hence the Adidas branding. As a brand, it stands to reason that Masuri will be paying international players to wear their lids, just like Gray Nic's will pay Capt Cook to use their equipment.
Put the shoe on the other foot, would Broad wear an Ayrtek if it was not now endorsed by Adidas? More than likely not, but it will be part of his sponsorship deal that he has to endorse it - failing that, a reduction in sponsorship money or loss of sponsorship.
Tom maybe able to clear this up, but does Broad have an Ayrtek Notts helmet? I am sure I have seen him in a Masuri.