I'm more concerned about the kids that 'have to have x bat, like their favourite star', when his bats aren't made by his sponsor.
Paying money for a an ill represent product, just to pay off big sponsorship deals is wrong in my books.
If CA are paying the bills, they should produce a product that the player wants to use. If your gear is s*#& and the player feels the need to go somewhere else, fair game for that company that actually produces the goods to claim ownership of their product.
Or you can look at like this : bat is a blank canvas . Batmaker/sponsor can provide the canvas and the advertising, or the sponsor can just provide the advertising and the player can source their own canvas .
Cars are 'stickered up' , so are tvs , computers , so many things these days . No one ever really complains that brand x tv has a samsung panel , or the rolls royce is just a stickered up beemer .
Re the little kid who wants a bat the same as his favourite player -a) parent buys best bat they can afford to get the kid irrespective of whether the kid likes the brand/stickers, b) parent buys the best performing bat with the right stickers on them( ultimately, the kid would be happy with this outcome , even if the player actually uses something else) , c) parent says 'stuff it , you can use this bat i had back in 1972 when i was your age' .
Author
Topic: Fakhar Zaman's bat .. CA or B3? (Read 13119 times)