Are Corporate Sponsorships Ruining Sports?

Everything is a byproduct of money, whether it is spending money or making money, all of sports are driven by the all mighty dollar. As much as fans want to believe that their teams did not “sell” out and use corporate sponsorship dollars to further their franchises, that simply is not the case. Every team in every league at every level is making decisions day in and day out based solely on the revenue that can be produced from such ideas, but is that such a bad thing? Fans everywhere want their teams to be the best and put the best product on the field, so why wouldn’t the franchise want to bring in as much revenue to help offset expenses as they possibly could? The idea of corporate sales and partnerships rubs a lot of fans the wrong way because they claim billboards are taking over the ballpark or that their sport is getting “NASCAR’ed”. The fact is that sports franchises have been and will always look for ways to increase inflow of funds, but the real question is if a franchise is hurting its connection with fans and going against the legacy of sport by selling to the highest bidder?

            The biggest argument against franchises, or colleges, selling corporate signage and other forms of marketing is that it is tainting the game and making stadiums and arenas look more like shopping centers and outlet malls. To an extent this idea is true, and as sport managers it is our responsibility to care about what our fans want to see and what they do not want to see. If you were working for a very conservative fan base who values tradition, it would not be wise, from a public relation standpoint, to sell the naming rights to a path full of cherished statutes but from a revenue and money standpoint, it would be brilliant. This is the issue that faces all sports managers working in any type of corporate sales and will continue to be an issue as technology continues to improve and allow for more opportunities to sell more inventory.

            Recently, they have been debates on the merit of selling the stadium naming rights to Cowboy Stadium (AT&T Stadium) and building a digital scoreboard and having signage at Wrigley Field.  The debate basically boils down to the idea of history and tradition verse the ability to make money. The signage at Wrigley Field is projected to bring in roughly 500 million dollars to be used to fund the entire renovation of both the stadium and a nearby park, which would feature a hotel. The problem with this idea is that it would block some nearby residents’ view of the stadium and would cause Wrigley to lose some of it’s traditional landmark feeling. The owners of the Cubs have been faced with some negative backlash from citizens of Wrigleyville but also some positive feedback from fans that want the ball club to do anything to excel and win a World Series.

            For future sport managers, if Wrigley can successfully add signage and corporate sponsorship then it really opens the door completely to corporatize everything in every ballpark. Baseball is about as tradition based of a sport as there is in America and once they move in to the 21^st century, then the rest of the ballparks can continue to grow. This would make it so that no area in any ballpark would feel as if it is off limits to ownership to try to monetize, and thus would create more opportunities for future sport managers to be creative and bring new ideas to organizations.

            AT&T has spent a reported, 17-19 million dollars a year, for the naming rights to former Cowboy Stadium. This means that the Cowboys now have that additional money in their revenue stream to be able to go out and improve not only the play on the field but the experience for the fans. The Cowboys have stated that the stadium will have increased WI-FI and mobile capabilities and that they have also entered into large partnerships with other corporate partners for areas inside of the stadium.  The idea that the Dallas Cowboys will no longer play in Dallas Stadium or Cowboys Stadium is a little bit strange, but if you are a Cowboys fan you, would you rather a Super Bowl or a name to a stadium?

            The most common way for franchises to bring in a large amount of money and not be overly invasive with corporate partnerships is to sell the naming rights to a stadium similar to what the Cowboys have done. This seems to be less bothersome to fans because they are not being forced to read a sign everywhere they look, but rather simply be in a place with a naming rights deal. The opposition to this notion is that by naming the stadium after a corporation, it loses its historical value and appeal. The fact of the matter is that nearly 75% of all professional stadiums and arenas have naming rights deals and those that do not are losing money every year that they are not selling the rights to the stadium and furthermore putting themselves behind other teams in the league. The ironic thing behind the argument that stadiums lose some historic value when they are named after a company or corporation is that most individuals point towards Wrigley Field and Fenway Park as models of ballparks that do not need naming right, when in fact those may have been the first two stadiums to use naming rights. The first owner of Fenway Park was also the founder of “Fenway Realty” and the owner of the Cubs was also the owner of Wrigley Gum. While neither of these companies paid to have their name on the stadium, they certainly can be seen as the first stadiums to have naming rights.

            As history has shown, the naming of a newly built stadium seems to be handled by fans in a more positive light as opposed to attempting to rename an old stadium. A perfect example of this would be the Cincinnati Reds selling the naming rights of Riverfront Stadium to the Cinergy energy company and renaming the stadium “Cinergy Field”. Reds’ fans continued to refer to the stadium as Riverfront Stadium despite the naming rights sale and were not pleased about the corporate sponsorship, but when a new stadium was built in Cincinnati and named Great American Ballpark, after Great American Insurance, there was little to no objection. This is another issue facing sports managers, the sale of the ballpark is not always what angers fans but rather when and who you sell the ballpark to. “Great American Ballpark” does not sound like a corporate sponsored park, but it actually is. Had the Reds sold their naming rights to Burger King and called their stadium “Burger King Field”, there may have been more objections. The point is that when in a position such as a sports manager, you must be able to see not only the revenue objectives but also the viewpoint of a fan.

            Moving forward, this topic is only going to become more prevalent as more stadiums that have never had naming rights deals will begin to succumb to the fact that they must. Beyond that, as stadiums continue to grow and incorporate parks and bars within the stadiums and arenas more naming opportunities will come available, for which sports managers need to be able to sell. The days of having “Joey’s Pizzeria” in a ballpark are gone as it is now more likely to be a Papa John’s or a Pizza Hut.    

            Sports managers have spent hours upon hours trying to find the correct balance between creating a revenue stream and creating a NASCAR feel within a stadium or arena. That balance remains difficult to find because their jobs rely on revenue but their revenue relies on people coming to watch the games. If you make the stadium too filled with advertising that fans are put off then they will stop coming and people will no longer want to advertise with you, but if you fill the place with fans then all companies will want to advertise with you. The selling of advertising is a necessary evil for all levels of sports, but is something that needs to be done and done well.