76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
"Quality at a lower price" is just marketing jargon for "cut corners where ever possible to save as much money as we can".
That is sometimes the case, and probably is in the case of Star, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Sometimes "Quality at a lower price" can be achieved by leveraging economies of scale. (Classic example: introduction of the model T Ford)
Sometimes "Quality at a lower price" can be achieved through innovation. (Classic example: introduction of the quartz watch)
Sometimes "Quality at a lower price" can be achieved by stripping out aspects of a product that offer little or no value to the consumer. In the case of footy jumpers - that could mean irrelevant marketing campaigns and product endorsements.
Would a Collingwood supporter be more inclined to buy a Nike branded Collingwood jumper because Roger Federer wears Nike? Unlikely. Is Roger Federer expensive? Yes he is. As is his manager. As is the Nike marketing executive who signs the contract. As are the staff around him or her. As are the lawyers on both sides. As is the marketing campaign that accompanies the endorsement. All that stuff can be stripped out.
That always comes at the expense of the consumer. (Unless the consumer is happy with cheap low-quality goods, which many are)
The consumer is usually king. They vote with their dollar, it's the ultimate democracy.
But that doesn't work in the case of monopolies, and selling footy jumpers is a monopoly (for consumers who intend to remain loyal to their footy club)
In that case we rely on regulation - the terms of the contract in this situation. If Star Athletic hasn't worked out well for Collingwood, then there's nobody to blame except the folks who negotiated the contract on behalf of Collingwood.