Should Teams Remove Partner Logos From Their Uniforms To Increase Revenue? For Many the Answer is No.

Dutch second-tier club Willem II has done something seemingly unthinkable in the sports industry: the team doubled its year-over-year sponsorship income while committing to having no branding on its kit (jersey)—and despite being relegated.

How did that happen?

On the surface, this seems like a classic case of doing well by doing good. Team GM Merijn Goris spoke to the club’s 18 partners, and they agreed that “they didn’t want the visibility but just to support giving the shirt back to the fans” for a three-year period. This action became a catalyst for the team’s partners to increase their financial commitment.

A closer examination, however, provides lessons for sports industry professionals considering a similar approach to on-uniform branding.

It starts with why partners often consider becoming kit or jersey sponsors in the first place. Many use on-uniform branding to increase brand awareness, particularly to maximize exposure across broadcast, streaming, social, and digital channels.

Willem II was unlikely to generate substantial brand awareness—especially outside the Netherlands. The team’s struggles in the Dutch Eredivisie (top league) meant it was not competing in European competitions that would generate significant impressions.

The team’s social and digital presence is also relatively small, even compared to other Dutch teams. For context, AFC Ajax has 8.7 million followers on Instagram and 1.3 million on YouTube. Willem II has 100 thousand followers on Instagram and 11.2 thousand on YouTube.

Andy Marston makes the compelling argument that the team’s “choice to stay silent could potentially cut through louder than their logo can.” Not having logos on its kit was the best—and potentially only—way the team could generate the awareness and interest needed to double its sponsorship revenue.

That logic does not hold for many major professional sports properties globally. These teams have global platforms that enable companies to reach large, passionate fan bases at a scale Willem II would be unlikely to achieve.

In addition, on-uniform branding partnerships typically include multiple activations beyond jersey logo exposure. These often involve tickets to games, access to in-venue hospitality and premium seating (e.g., suites), social media content, exclusive events with player or coach appearances, and community engagement opportunities.

Willem II’s success also does not mean this strategy is replicable for other smaller properties. The team had a first-mover advantage. It generated media coverage because it was one of—if not the—first teams to take this approach. Other teams likely would not receive the same attention for adopting a logo-free kit.

The initial attention and revenue increases Willem II achieved do not necessarily guarantee long-term success. The team is unlikely to receive the same level of attention over the next two years that it did in the first year of the strategy.

Even though Willem II’s strategy may not be replicable, there are takeaways for sports industry professionals. The decision to remove kit sponsors demonstrates the importance of independent thinking when it comes to maximizing partnership revenues.

More specifically, Willem II was not in a strong position to help partners maximize value from on-uniform branding given its relatively small media footprint. It also recognized that its partners were focused on maximizing local fan and community engagement rather than global brand exposure. Therefore, Willem II took a non-traditional approach to maximize partnership revenues by removing logos from its kit.

Sports properties do not need to wait to be relegated, nor limit themselves to traditional partnerships, to adopt this type of thinking. Understanding a team’s competitive positioning and taking steps to maximize its value across ticketing, merchandise, fan engagement, and sponsorship can lead to incremental revenue growth.