FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Shows you how far behind the curve the Europeans are with the business of sport: Americans went through this naming rights controversy about a decade ago now. Heard the other day that Serie A clubs are patting themselves on the back for establishing children sections inside their stadiums (for a ridiculously low season ticket price) to get families back in the stadiums, which is something we've done for years in America.

Check out this podcast on the business of football, featuring Simon Kuper who's also written a very good book on the topic as well as the famous "Football Against The Enemy"

http://tinyurl.com/yawc9tn

Selling Stamford Bridge's naming rights is stupid. NOONE will ever use the new name, even commentators. If you want to sell naming rights, it has to be on a new facility, not one that's over 100 years old.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 12:18 PM ET  11.07 by dannylimes

Selling Stamford Bridge's naming rights is stupid. NOONE will ever use the new name, even commentators. If you want to sell naming rights, it has to be on a new facility, not one that's over 100 years old.

The same thing happened in America at first: I remember the announcers kept calling it Mile High Stadium for a couple of years until they worked in the obligatory Invesco Field reference. Mile High Stadium now sounds like something out of an old AFL game between the Raiders and the Chiefs when Len Dawson was taking snaps.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 12:31 PM ET  11.07 by dynamo

The same thing happened in America at first: I remember the announcers kept calling it Mile High Stadium for a couple of years until they worked in the obligatory Invesco Field reference. Mile High Stadium now sounds like something out of an old AFL game between the Raiders and the Chiefs when Len Dawson was taking snaps.

We do the same here with Verizon Music Center. It will forever be Deer Creek to me!!!!

Sure naming rights are common, but there are some stadiums that simply cannot be renamed: Yankee Stadium, Lambeau Field, Old Trafford, etc.

And Mile High Stadium got torn down and they just named the new one "Invesco Stadium at Mile High" as some sort of half-tribute, half-sellout wierdness.

Tottenham's new stadium should be sweet (I am a Spurs fan) but in 100 years people are not going to remember as the great stadiums places like Emerites Stadium or whatever the name the new Spurs grounds. They will remember the stadiums like Stamford Bridge, Anfield, Nou Camp, etc. How stupid would it be to say something like "there was nothing like the old classic stadium Invesco Field".

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 12:18 PM ET  11.07 by dannylimes

Selling Stamford Bridge's naming rights is stupid. NOONE will ever use the new name, even commentators. If you want to sell naming rights, it has to be on a new facility, not one that's over 100 years old.

It happened recently in Brazil, with Atletico Paranaense's stadium being "officially" named "Kyocera Arena", but with everyone still calling it "Arena da Baixada"; as long as it appears in the official summary with the sponsor's name, and on signs and in publications, the use of the popular name by people in the street doesn't seem to faze the sponsors much. So, if Chelsea want to name their stadium "Summer's Eve Arena", let them - it's money in the bank, and few will deviate from calling Stamford Bridge by its traditional name.

For the record, I think the whole business of naming rights stinks. I was so thankful growing up in Baltimore to have Memorial Stadium and Oriole Park At Camden Yards. Look at what sits across the street..Ravens Stadium at Camden Yards, err. I mean, PSINet Stadium, er...I mean Ravens Stadium, er...I mean M&T Bank Stadium....
All those names in ~10 years. Cheapens it all. You will note the same thing, although to a much smaller extent, happened in Houston with Enron Field Astro's Field to Minute Maid Park. (The Ballpark at Union Station was always better)

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 03:09 PM ET  11.07 by The Special One

For the record, I think the whole business of naming rights stinks. I was so thankful growing up in Baltimore to have Memorial Stadium and Oriole Park At Camden Yards. Look at what sits across the street..Ravens Stadium at Camden Yards, err. I mean, PSINet Stadium, er...I mean Ravens Stadium, er...I mean M&T Bank Stadium....All those names in ~10 years. Cheapens it all. You will note the same thing, although to a much smaller extent, happened in Houston with Enron Field Astro's Field to Minute Maid Park. (The Ballpark at Union Station was always better)

I do get your point because I grew up with that old pit called the Boston Garden. The mens' rooms were - essentially - a giant rain gutter and two stalls, but I wouldn't have traded it in for anything because you could cut the tension with a knife in there. But now, people want their stadiums to be like amusement parks (don't know where they came up with that one) to drain off every last dollar you have on you at the time, so I guess naming rights go right along with the game plan. Personally with HD TV and a digital broadcast service, I wouldn't be caught dead in a stadium now - too antiseptic for me, and too much work and it's just not worth the price. And we didn't need cheerleaders and amplified demands from walls of speakers to tell us what to do.

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 04:08 PM ET  11.07 by dynamo

I do get your point because I grew up with that old pit called the Boston Garden. The mens' rooms were - essentially - a giant rain gutter and two stalls, but I wouldn't have traded it in for anything because you could cut the tension with a knife in there. But now, people want their stadiums to be like amusement parks (don't know where they came up with that one) to drain off every last dollar you have on you at the time, so I guess naming rights go right along with the game plan. Personally with HD TV and a digital broadcast service, I wouldn't be caught dead in a stadium now - too antiseptic for me, and too much work and it's just not worth the price. And we didn't need cheerleaders and amplified demands from walls of speakers to tell us what to do.

Amen. Give the Garden and the LA Coliseum and the Kingdome and Maple Leaf Gardens and Tiger Stadium and any other old venue with soul.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 12:31 PM ET  11.07 by dynamo

The same thing happened in America at first: I remember the announcers kept calling it Mile High Stadium for a couple of years until they worked in the obligatory Invesco Field reference. Mile High Stadium now sounds like something out of an old AFL game between the Raiders and the Chiefs when Len Dawson was taking snaps.

Happens in reverse in Buffalo... they were one of the first teams to sell naming rights to a stadium with their current stadium back in the 70s when it was built... sold to Rich Products... Rich Stadium. Now it's wholly owned by Ralph Wilson, and named Ralph Wilson Stadium.... and it's still Rich Stadium to many... even tho local sportscasters have tagged it "The Ralph" and seems to have worked that into the vernacular.

Abrupt change doesn't happen easily... but it will happen over time.

Land Shark Stadium in miami has been fun to watch over the years. I remember at one point they changed their name twice in less than a week, apparently saying Pro Player Park was too difficult to say...

Chelsea's chief executive, Ron Gourlay, makes a good point in the article in the Guardian that announced Chelsea was planning to sell the naming rights its stadium to a big corporation"

"What we are not prepared to happen, and I am sure our fans will appreciate this, is allow our rival clubs in England and Europe to gain a competitive advantage over us in terms of the revenue they can generate through either expanding the capacity of their existing stadia or moving to a new stadium and then invest that upside in their team or the club.

"Those possibilities are not open to Chelsea for the foreseeable future because of the restrictions in expanding our stadium and the issues around finding a new site, so that means we have to be creative and look at our sponsorship architecture and see if we can create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive."

And to all those fans bemoaning Stamford Bridge losing its history: what history? Before Roman took over your team had finished top of the table in the first flight only once. Once

^^^Here's the link to the article in which Gourlay made those quotes:

http://tinyurl.com/yzng84e

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 12:31 PM ET  11.07 by dynamo

The same thing happened in America at first: I remember the announcers kept calling it Mile High Stadium for a couple of years until they worked in the obligatory Invesco Field reference. Mile High Stadium now sounds like something out of an old AFL game between the Raiders and the Chiefs when Len Dawson was taking snaps.

yeah but invesco is the new mile high, not the old one

plus you don't need to sell the name of the stadium. ever. cuz after the contract is up, they ust rename it. which is stupid. just put a big sign up in and around the stadium. it does not need to be "on" the stadium. what do you see when you go to fenway? a giant john hancock sign in center field. what do you see all over the monster? D&D signs and Coke bottles. and you what? they make just as much money as teams who sell naming rights. why? because there are enough companies that are willing to shell out a price the sox want to get their name/ logo up where people can see it. chelsea is a big enough club where they can pull a fenway. i know arsenal plays at emirates, but many fans call the stadium ashburton grove, and at least emirates doesn't sound tacky and has developed a sort of mystique about its name.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 08:17 PM ET  11.08 by CUtigerssoccer

i know arsenal plays at emirates, but many fans call the stadium ashburton grove, and at least emirates doesn't sound tacky and has developed a sort of mystique about its name.

This shows the two likely outcomes of incorporating a sponsor's name into a stadium's name: 1. either the fans still call it by the original name (like the Boston Garden), or 2. the fans start incorporating the sponsor's name into the stadium's name. Either way, in my opinion, it doesn't really affect the mystique or history of a stadium. People still refer to the Celtics' home court as the Boston Garden. Just because the name of the court has TD Banknorth in it doesn't mean that people look at the stadium in a completely different light.

they are not as big of a club as chelsea so doubt they get more money or bigger brand. i agree with the sentiments abouve. they change them to (panthers played their first ten years in ericcson stadium, but now its bank of america) corporate names but the fans carry on calling them three rivers, mile high, boston garden,etc etc. it's just the talking heads that have to call the RCB centura center, and so on.

QUOTE(#17):

Originally posted 12:00 AM ET  11.09 by jimsvejk

they are not as big of a club as chelsea so doubt they get more money or bigger brand. i agree with the sentiments abouve. they change them to (panthers played their first ten years in ericcson stadium, but now its bank of america) corporate names but the fans carry on calling them three rivers, mile high, boston garden,etc etc. it's just the talking heads that have to call the RCB centura center, and so on.

What do you mean that Spurs arent as big a club as Chelsea, thats rubbish mate, they are in many ways a much bigger club with far more history, and support going back decades!!!..cont mistake the Chelsea of today with the Russians money as being a bigger club or any of that rubbish talk about the so called 'big four' as these things just go in circles.....

i know tottenham is historically, but wonder if they could attract an equal or bigger sponsor. maybe they could. could care less as i'm simply ABMU as the EPL goes.

QUOTE(#18):

Originally posted 04:18 AM ET  11.09 by kjlast

What do you mean that Spurs arent as big a club as Chelsea, thats rubbish mate, they are in many ways a much bigger club with far more history, and support going back decades!!!..cont mistake the Chelsea of today with the Russians money as being a bigger club or any of that rubbish talk about the so called 'big four' as these things just go in circles.....

at least im not the only one who knows spurs have a better history then chesea(man city), and the stadium naming works at a new place, in buffalo they tor down the aud, and built hsbc arena and now it will always be hsbc, in nascar i still refer to the series as winston cup not nextell and busch series not nationwide(dont laugh because i watch nascar).