Enlighten us. lol.
I think Kicker & Proundtrinbagonian brought up some fantastic points so far.
The premise of your thread is based on a fundamental misconception of the nature and scope of AIG's activities. "AIG" isn't responsible for the mess they've found themselves in, a relatively small component of AIG, located in London of all places, is what's responsible for the credit default swap mess. AIG stopped initiating CDSs linked to subprime mortgages way back in 2005 (if you believe the congressional testimony), but initiating these securities and having to pay them once they become due are two different things altogether.
That misunderstanding, and subsequent mischaracterisation of the situation as a "promulgation of the ills of society" aside... you then simplistically state that it would somehow be "moral" and "ethical" for Man U. to stop carrying the AIG logo on their shirts as though AIG was involved in the blood diamond trade or in dealing with child prostitutes in Thailand or something. Contrary to what Kicker is saying, AIG is very much being scapegoated right now. People have forgotten Lehman and Bear Stearns complicity in this mess and all the focus is on AIG who really did nothing other than to provide insurance for some of the loans made to companies like Lehman Bros. and BSC. AIG is in need of a bailout because if it fails to pay on the premiums then many of the financial lenders who paid for its insurance services would fail. This is why all the talk of letting AIG go into bankruptcy that some are sugggesting in the media is foolish and misinformed.
Bottomline is twofold: AIG is hardly the corporate demon you paint it to be; and secondly the financial troubles have no bearing on Man U. and I hardly think that people worry about the logo on the chest of the players more than they're concerned with the performance on the pitch. To cite a separation as "ethical" or "moral" is kneejerk overreactionism at its worst.
ACORNS (the shirt sponsor) and ACORN are two completely different companies with zero relation whatsoever, but just the semantics involved and wearing it in the US carries a different conotation.
ACORN is an organisation in the US is synonymous with voter intimidation, bogus voter registrations, voter fraud, etc.
Firstly "ACORN" and "ACORNS" don't involve 'semantics'... people really need to educate themselves on the proper usage of that word. If anything the two are more akin to homonyms ("their/there", "root/route" etc.).
Secondly it's dubious to say that ACORN is synonymous with voter intimidation... you are straight up just pulling that from your ass because they've never been accused of intimidating voters. Additionally, if you subscribe to the notion that the name is synonymous with the ills that you cite, then that's probably because you watch too much FOX News or foolishly rely on tittilating headlines and lead ins for your news. Republicans are the only ones who repeatedly foist the lie on the public that ACORN has any links whatsoever to such acts... allegations mind you which have never panned out. Many more objective-minded individuals actually associate ACORN with voter-registration and grassroots activism on issues such as affordable housing.