Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre has won up SI's "Sportsman of the Year" award. It's hard to argue with Favre's resurgence. As the iron man prepares to play his remarkable 250th straight game this weekend, his team is a surprising 10-2.
And while Favre has always been a top 10 jersey seller--which means more because the Packers jersey has never changed--it's interesting to consider that he's not really that relevant in the marketing world. So Wrangler jeans has him for a couple seconds in a spot and he used to be seen in Prilosec ads.
But where's the iron man Ripken-type ads? Why isn't Favre more relevant? People might cite the smallest market Green Bay, where the official town population is a little bit more than the capacity of Lambeau Field, but then how do you explain the fact that his jersey sells like it does and his Fathead is on more kids walls than most?
So it must be his bad performance over the last couple of years, right? Well, remember aside from a dramatic All-Star home run. Cal Ripken and his Orioles weren't exactly a powerful combination in his final years.
So that leaves me with one big reason. And it's not his one-time Vicodin addiction. The bottom line is that Favre isn't more relevant because companies have been scared to attach their brand to him because they never know whether he's coming back or not. Brands want long-term relationships, not one-off agreements.
Questions? Comments? SportsBiz@cnbc.com