Hated AIG Kicks It in Konami’s Pro Evolution Soccer 2009

If you haven’t yet gotten your fill of AIG news, Stephen Totilo of MTV Multiplayer reports that the controversial, troubled insurance company shows up unexpectedly in Konami’s Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.

Stephen was checking out the Wii version and reports that AIG’s now-infamous logo appears on the jerseys of Manchester United:

For those who recognize AIG as one of the most hated three-letter combinations in America these days, be warned about Konami’s new Wii soccer game “Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.”

The game’s opening cinematic has a bunch of guys wearing the company’s logo…

I discovered through “PES 2009″ that Manchester United… is sponsored by AIG. (Or, to be precise, used to be sponsored, as reports, like this one from Forbes, indicate that the U.S. government has nixed any renewal of this Manchester United AIG deal.)

After reading Stephen’s piece I tossed my copy into the PS3, and found AIG there, as well.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

21 comments

  1. Zero Beat says:

    I read "PS3" as "trash" the first time I read that.  I would’ve read any other console or handheld or even PC as such in that sentence.

     

    "That’s not ironic. That’s justice."

  2. Chuma says:

    Frankly, even as a Liverpool Fan, if you don’t know that Man Utd are sponsered by AIG you are probably not a fan of the Premiership, or of football.

    Man Utd have ended their sponsership with AIG early due to their finances and in the 2009/2010 season you will probably find a new logo.  What are Pro Ev meant to do to curb the delecate sensibilities of US viewers?  Bend reality?  When you watch the Premiership or Champions League, do you expect the TV people to mosaic their T shirts?

    Stephen Totilo needs to grow the fuck up.

  3. Grombar says:

    Austin:

    The thing that should really piss people off is that Obama’s White House, knowing full well this would happen, is now talking about taxing those bonuses at 90-100% rates.  

    The House of Representatives is pushing that tax, but the White House doesn’t seem to like it:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/22/white-house-officials-wont-endorse-tax-on-bonuses/

    Personally, $169 million to keep a couple of those guys around is a fine price to pay.

    Several of the people they paid the "retention bonuses" to don’t even work there anymore.

    Also:

    I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of those people were talented enough to warrant bonuses

    "Fairly certain" based on what? If the last six months have taught us anything, it’s that having vast amounts of money doesn’t automatically mean you’re qualified to manage it.

  4. Chuma says:

    Actually it was worse than just having to pay court fees;  there is a clause in the contract that says if the bonuses are not paid and it is taken to court and found they are due them, they have to pay 3-4 times the bonuses.  The decision to pay them was a legal one, not a moral one.

    As for the assertion that those at the top deserved them, no I whole-heartedly disagree.  But as someone who has friends in the banking industry who work all hours of the day and night correcting faults and who had no say in any decisions whatsoever, seeing these people get bugger all as a bonus is hard to swallow.  Sadly the newspapers are always in black and white (pun intended).

  5. Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of those people were talented enough to warrant bonuses; just because the company falls, doesn’t mean everybody had a hand.  Some of these people were railing against practices like sub-prime lending the whole fucking time, and turns out the were right.  Personally, $169 million to keep a couple of those guys around is a fine price to pay.

     

    As for Obama’s administration knowing, everyone in the houses knew.  They even asked the AG if he thought they could get away with NOT paying the bonuses, and the AG said that if they didn’t pay them, they’d end up going to court, losing lawsuit after lawsuit, and having to pay the bonuses AND court fees.  Hell, Dodd was writing a piece of legislation that would have mean they COULD NOT pay the bonuses with this bailout money, but Obama’s administration pressured him to skip writing it so they could get it passed faster. There’s a lot of double talk in this administration, and we’re only a few months in.

  6. Chuma says:

    It bugs me too, but then again, I hear Rugby people calling their sport football on occasions as well.

  7. beemoh says:

    FOOTBALL.

    It’s called FOOTBALL.

    this post brought to you by the tired old nationalistic jokes committee

    /b

  8. State says:

    It’s hardly bad timing as Pro Evo 2009 has been on the market in some countries since last year. Also if you check out a few of the last FIFAs you will notice that AIG have sponsored Manchester United for a number of years.

  9. Krono says:

    And the point of this is what?

    A bit of news that’s of mild interest? Sure it’s not really worthy of much more a response than "Ouch, that’s got to be some of the suckiest timing for a piece of advertising to reach market.", but it does fall within the scope of this website, so why not report on it?

    -Gray17

  10. State says:

    And the point of this is what? It’s publically been known that AIG have sponsered Manchester United for a few years, it’s not as though it’s a secret (would defeat the point of sponsorship if it was) or has just recently happened.

    So people should be shocked because a football team was sponsored by a company before it got into financial troubles? Also the company weren’t banned by the US government from sponsoring Manchester United anymore as the sponsorship deal was broken off by the parties concerned before the bail out.

    Talk about over-reaction on a non-news story.

  11. Kincyr says:

    at least you have an excuse. I live in the U.S. and I’m not up to date on the latest scandal.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  12. Hackangel says:

    Whats AIG again? Hey, I don’t live in the U.S. so I’m not up to date on the latest scandal.

  13. Krono says:

    Yeah, this is pretty much a matter of marketing set in motion a while ago coming back to bit the company on the ass through no fault of the marketers.

    -Gray17

  14. Austin_Lewis says:

    Also, AIG has sponsored soccer teams for YEARS.  I remember last year being in London during the Manchester United V. Chelsea game, and all the shirts had AIG on them.  Hell, even the jersey I was wearing in the pub we were at had the AIG logo on it.

  15. Krono says:

    These are retention bonuses, money paid to keep talented people on staff, and they’re very common in many practices. 

    That a number of these people aren’t talented enough to warrent bonuses after such failure is part of people’s complaints. Really the whole retention bonuses thing is just made for criticism, and this was the high profile trigger.

    The thing that should really piss people off is that Obama’s White House, knowing full well this would happen, is now talking about taxing those bonuses at 90-100% rates.  That’s nothing short of fucked up. 

    Personally I question the claim about the Obama administration knowing full well this would happen; but yeah the taxes thing is pretty stupid.

    -Gray17

  16. Austin_Lewis says:

    My favorite thing about this is that people are harassing the people who had already been promised bonuses, instead of harassing the democrat party that pushed the money through to AIG, knowing full well that those bonuses would be paid with the money.  Everyone in the government has known since November that AIG wanted money and was going to pay bonuses with it, especially the current Attorney General who said that they should pay the bonuses because if they didn’t, they’d be sued for the bonuses.  These are retention bonuses, money paid to keep talented people on staff, and they’re very common in many practices. 
    The thing that should really piss people off is that Obama’s White House, knowing full well this would happen, is now talking about taxing those bonuses at 90-100% rates.  That’s nothing short of fucked up. 

  17. A-wel Cruiz says:

    For some reason, this reminds me of that Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where the XFL was dipicted as the sport of the future.

    Either that, or any MLB video game released before the Enron scandal featuring Enron Field in all it’s glory.

  18. Michael Chandra says:

    I still find it ironic the AIG people getting harassed and stalked by angry people are the ones that gave their bonus back, because only their names are known. Crowds are stupid.

  19. Zen says:

    That is going to happen from time to time as either a franchise moves on, or a game is brought back.  The same thing happened on Wave Race 64 when it showed up on the Virtual Console for the Wii.  Any and all ads and references to Kawasaki were removed from the water craft and around the tracks themselves because the contract for those ads were never removed.  I’m afraid this may be the same reason one of my all time favorite N64 games, Beetle Adventure Racing, will never come out on VC either.  And yes…I drive a Beetle. 🙂

    Zen aka Jeremy Powers
    Panama City, Fl.

  20. Andrew Eisen says:

    You know what really bothered me?  When the Dole logo went missing from the bananas in the Wii version of Super Monkey Ball.  It just wasn’t the same.

    That and the game sucked.

     

    Andrew Eisen

Comments are closed.