THIS WOULD BE DOWN TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMPANY WHO BRACED THE IDEAL THAT THE SPORT WOULD PROSPER. AND WITH A BIT OF MONEY BACKING, THE GAMBLE WOULD BE DOWN TO SHARE HOLDERS THE OUTCOME OF THE RETURN.

I suspect the negative effect of sponsorship is considerable and overlooked. I don't think I have ever bought anything because the company sponsored my team (Manchester United), but I avoid O2 phones beacuse they sponsored Arsenal for many years. Am I right in thinking that research has shown negative associations tend to be stronger than positive ones?

In Glasgow where there are two football teams with a fierce rivalry (Rangers and er, the other one I forget what they are called) jersey sponsors have avoided conflict by sponsoring BOTH teams. I suppose that the sponsor is aware that being associated with just one will alienate 50% of their target audience and so go for both. This would at least suggest that the advertiser is aware of the possibility of the negative effect that you mention.

Well, Hugo Boss is still going and they designed and made the SS uniforms in WW2...

great question. i am certain in most cases positives would outweigh negatives.  as the saying goes all advertisement is good advertisement.  one example is car sales from cars that appear on top gear all increase regardless of the review the team give.

one thing that does put me off buying supporter gear is not the sponsor itself, rather the size of the logo, for example football jumpers with a huge logo planted on the front is not something you want to wear.

in Australian Rules Football the logo of the company on the front of the jumper is heavily restricted in size, always rather small, always in the same location, and always the same size.

therefore regardless of the sponsor supporters love the jumper for what is has always been for 100 years, not half of the jumper space advertisement