Paul, I'd be interested to read your thoughts on this, do you think we have ever been in a position where we can justify pro teams?
I am talking about whether there was some form of return on a company's investment package to pro teams.
And Missy .... I'd like to hear your thoughts also .......
While I haven't been traumatized like Missy by the vaguaries of the forum I will have to keep this brief for now--(brief by my usual standard anyway.)
Btw, I think Mark makes an excellent point on the genesis of pro teams into commodities and merchandiising vehicles.
Q1--if you mean justify the sums paid by industry in support of tournament teams--probably, almost certainly, not. Partly because there was a lot of money that went to other than competition-related expenses back in the day. If you mean relative to the value provided by the pro team then again, probably not, but it's a nearly impossible calculus to make. If you mean the existence of pro teams period within the hierarchy of competitive paintball or even paintball broadly--of course we can. But that doesn't mean industry is then responsible to pay for all of it.
Q2--the short answer is yes. But did the value match the sums expended? Probably not and probably not even close much of the time. I say yes though because I have no doubts that certain teams in certain situations had a positive impact for their sponsors, particularly gun sponsors.
Should similar relationships continue to exist in the present and into the future? Sure. Will they? Probably in one form a or another at least for a few. And while it's tough at present I'm hopeful the present situation will force both teams and industry to adopt policies and practices that are more realistic and will lead to greater stability in the future.