EDIT:

List (update 09-05-2013)
mil. USD / year

Etihad Stadium 24,00
Barclays Center 20,00
Citi Field 20,00
MetLife Stadium 16,00
Ricoh Arena 15,44
Levi's Stadium 11,02
Türk Telekom Arena 10,25
Barclays Center 10,00
Staples Center 10,00
Reliant Stadium 10,00
Philips Arena 9,25
Allianz Arena 7,89
Otkrytie Arena 7,89
Fed Ex Stadium 7,59
Sun Life Stadium 7,50
Bank of America Stadium 7,00
Gillette Stadium 7,00
Lincoln Financial Field 6,65
Veltins-Arena 6,58
Lucas Oil Stadium 6,10
Field at Mile High 6,00
Sports Authority Field 6,00
University of Phoenix Stadium 5,94
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,26
CenturyLink Field 5,00
M&T Bank Stadium 5,00
Commerzbank-Arena 3,95
EverBank Field 3,32
LP Field 3,00
Heinz Field 2,85
Allianz Nice Stadium 2,63
Edward Jones Dome 2,65
Raymond James 2,50
Ford Field 2,00
Mall of America Field 2,00
O.co Coliseum 1,20
Qualcomm Stadium 0,90











Hi,

Are there any lists comparing naming rights deals of various stadiums available? I have tried to search but can't find anything on here.

England
Arsenal - Emirates Stadium - £100m over 15 years (includes kit sponsorship)
Coventry - Ricoh Arena - £10m over ten years

Los Angeles

Staples paid $100,000,000 over 20 years for the naming rights to Staples Center back in 1999.

Here in Aachen, Germany the clubs Fans invest over 4.2 mio € into the new 50 mio € stadium project, to enable the club to keep the old stadiums name.
The club had a few offers from namesponsors, but decided it would be more beneficial not to sell the name and keep and attract more fans that way.
The club also generates some more merchandising incomes with the traditional stadiumname now, by selling Tivoli clothes and other Tivoli fanware.

At least it's a good example for one of the few cases where namingrights were not beneficial enough so far, to compete with other possible ways. Not selling the name and keeping a "powerfull" and traditional name and using it as a brand has proven to be quite a good possibillity for a club to distinguish itself from the others here so far. Other stadia like the "Stadion im Borussiapark" in Mönchengladbach or the "MSV Arena" in Duisburg also didn't sucessfully find a namesponsor, but can't use a traditional name of the old stadium as a brand.
Dresden will also keep the old name for now, until the womens WC but ist trying to sell it for the time afterwards.

http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blogmedia/2009/04/naming-rights-park.jpg

We are Tottenham, super Tottenham, from the Naming Rights...

Türk Telekom Arena:
10,250,000 USD / Year (+7,000,000 USD / year kit)
Total 10 years = 102,500,000 USD (+ 5 years kit 35,000,000)

Seattle Area:
Key Arena (Formerly Seattle Center Arena): Key Bank
Qwest Field (Formerly Seahawks Stadium): Qwest Communications
Safeco Field: Safeco Insurance Corp.
Sho Ware Center (Formerly Kent Events Center): Sho Ware
Comcast Arena (Formerly Everett Events Center): Comcast Cable

Phoenix Area:
Jobing.com Arena: Jobing.com resume website
Chase Field: JP Morgan Chase
US Airways Center: US Airways
University of Phoenix Stadium: University of Phoenix school
Wells Fargo Arena (Arizona State basketball): Wells Fargo bank

Jobing.com Arena is an awful name. Another equally bad one comes courtesy of Toronto-Dominion, 'America's Most Convenient Bank': TD Banknorth Garden? YUCK!

Its just the TD Garden now.

University of Phoenix Stadium is indeed quite a poor name for such an amazing facility. As an aside, I wonder why there are so many airline companies that sponsor arenas though. Airlines and Banks usually seem to dominate the naming rights market even though there are so many bigger corporations out there. Would love to know why that is.

Philips Electronics paid $180 million for the naming rights to Philips Arena in Atlanta. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/03/business/philips-to-pay-180-million-to-name-new-atlanta-arena.html

The city's other major venues - the Georgia Dome (NFL) and Turner Field (MLB) - weren't whored out to any corporate pimps.

Here in Aachen, Germany the clubs Fans invest over 4.2 mio € into the new 50 mio € stadium project, to enable the club to keep the old stadiums name.
The club had a few offers from namesponsors, but decided it would be more beneficial not to sell the name and keep and attract more fans that way.
The club also generates some more merchandising incomes with the traditional stadiumname now, by selling Tivoli clothes and other Tivoli fanware.

At least it's a good example for one of the few cases where namingrights were not beneficial enough so far, to compete with other possible ways. Not selling the name and keeping a "powerfull" and traditional name and using it as a brand has proven to be quite a good possibillity for a club to distinguish itself from the others here so far. Other stadia like the "Stadion im Borussiapark" in Mönchengladbach or the "MSV Arena" in Duisburg also didn't sucessfully find a namesponsor, but can't use a traditional name of the old stadium as a brand.
Dresden will also keep the old name for now, until the womens WC but ist trying to sell it for the time afterwards.

Yes. I think you're right to say that Aachen isn't a sufficiently big "brand" to be able to attract a sufficiently worthwhile naming rights deal.

It's only when the numbers get big that losing a long cherished stadium name becomes a price worth paying. For instance, I know that Spurs are hoping to sign a deal with a middle eastern or Asian company that will pay for the majority of their new stadium construction costs. That would be too good a deal to turn down.

The idea is that, in exchange for x number of years of stadium naming rights and shirt sponsorship, the company in question will hand Spurs a "gift in kind". That is, all the money will be paid up front - thereby eliminating the need for Spurs to take on any debt.

If Spurs are successful in this plan, I would expect it to become the model for quite a few other stadium naming rights deals.

Its just the TD Garden now.

That's much better, but the Boston Garden is what it is. There's a sizable number of people in Toronto that continue to call the Skydome, the Skydome. It's the name that was chosen by the public when the stadium was built. Rogers paid to have it changed to the Rogers Centre, but it should really be the public who decide what they want to call it, especially in a facility that they paid for.

Thankfully, some people in Toronto have realized that, and reverted back to the name Skydome.

Rogers Centre was such a ridculous change of name. Should have went with something like Rogers SkyDome.

Rogers Centre was such a ridculous change of name. Should have went with something like Rogers SkyDome.

Then people would have just continued to call it SkyDome, which while nice for nostalgia, defeats the purpose of naming rights.

Westfalenstadion, Müngersdorfer Stadion, Waldstadion, Neckarstadion, etc., etc.

Price: Priceless.

Westfalenstadion, Müngersdorfer Stadion, Waldstadion, Neckarstadion, etc., etc.

Price: Priceless.

Unfortunately not.

Especially when a club has to fund the construction of a new stadium. Without naming rights, many (if not most) new stadium builds wouldn't be affordable. My club, Spurs, certainly couldn't begin to contemplate building a long overdue and desperately needed new stadium if it wasn't for the fact that they expect to sign a £200 million (approx) combined naming rights and shirt sponsoship deal.

We'd all love the game to be free from garish marketing. But, for all but a minority of clubs, it simply isn't realistic to ignore the money on offer from companies willing to pour sponsorship money into football.

Pandora's Box was opened long ago when rich men started trying to buy success for their clubs.

It's too late to go back.

Where did you find that £200million figure?

Then people would have just continued to call it SkyDome, which while nice for nostalgia, defeats the purpose of naming rights.

It does defeat the purpose, but I'm all in favour of people doing as they see fit rather than some arrogant company dictating to them how things will be. Rogers is a very arrogant company with little respect for Canadian culture. I'll never call it R*gers Centre.

Then people would have just continued to call it SkyDome, which while nice for nostalgia, defeats the purpose of naming rights.

As it is right now, I rarely hear anyone call it Rogers Centre (aside from those who are legally obligated to). Skydome just rolls off the tongue for everyone. In addition, a lot of people make a point out of calling it
Skydome ... plus the fact that in general, "centre" usually refers to indoor arenas here ... not 50,000+ capacity stadiums.

I think CitiField has the record for most expensive naming rights deal. I think there was an article in some financial publication that listed the other biggest ones.

LIVERPOOL are pursuing a £240million naming rights deal to finally kickstart their troubled move to Stanley Park.

Carlsberg's 18-year shirt sponsorship with the Reds ends next year.


But the Danish beer brewers are prepared to match the £100m Arsenal received for a 15-year deal with Emirates.


Yet Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett want to smash existing records, asking far more than the Gunners got in 2004.


Hicks and Gillett see the numerous examples of US stadium sponsorship deals as the blueprint for the new Anfield.


The New York Mets baseball team and New Jersey Nets Basketball side currently claim the most lucrative naming rights deals.


They both secured a 20-year contract with Citi Group and Barclays worth £240m respectively.


Both Dallas Cowboys and the New York Giants are negotiating similar returns for their new arenas. Liverpool are confident they can at least match the £12m-a-year which the top US franchises have secured, and will be looking to top them.


The club wants new partners on board well before completion of the arena, which is on hold due to the recession, but which the owners insist is merely delayed rather than cancelled.


New Reds managing director Christian Purslow sealed a record- breaking £80m shirt deal with Standard Charterd - and Hicks and Gillett know such lucrative deals are key to restoring stability at Liverpool.


The underfire Kop owners have launched a serious charm offensive over the last few days to try to win back the trust of the supporters.


Until the levels of debt at the club are reduced, they will continue to be perceived cynically for the broken promises of the past.



http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/liverpool/512224/Liverpool-chase-pound240-million-deal.html

Where did you find that £200million figure?

Nothing in the public domain but, if you've read the new White Hart Lane thread, you will have seen that I've posted information from a regular poster on a Spurs forum who is closely connected to Tavistock Group (which is the parent company of ENIC - the company that owns Spurs).

Talking about Joe Lewis (Tavistock Group's owner) a couple of months ago, he wrote:


"the main purpose of his visit is to add his “considerable commercial clout” to meetings with blue chip Companies for potential sponsorship/naming rights deals. The auction process has begun and, following early feedback, confidence is high within Tavistock Group and seat rights and share issues are now viewed as “purely contingencies”.

Although Paul Barber has been the leader of the envoy, it will be down to the only 2 shareholders of ENIC (Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy) to negotiate the naming rights deal.

The strategy of our having a new Stadium without long term unsustainable debt and without effecting our ability to invest in the 1st Team Squad appears to be well on course. IMO there will be no long term debt incurred."


A few weeks later, he posted in relation to an article that appeared in a United Arab Emirates based newspaper:


"As of current exchange rates the figure quoted of 1.5 billion UAE Dirham is equivalent to +/- £250 million which is the cost of the stadium build (not the whole stadium complex but just the stadium) as quoted by Matt Collecott.

A combined stadium naming rights and shirt sponsorship deal for e.g.15 years which gives us a brand new stadium with NO debt has to be a good deal in anybody’s eyes.

The deal has not been done but the cost of the deal is common knowledge and there is more than one interested party."

I am currently looking for informations about the naming rights of the Generali Arena in Prague, that was implemented last year.
Does anyone know the details about this partnership?

I was always partial to Dick's Sporting Goods Park in Denver. Although the new KFC Yum Arena in Louisville runs it a close second.

As to the SkyDome/Rogers Centre issue, something similar happened in Britain a few years ago. Middlesborough opened a new stadium, called the BT Cellnet Riverside Stadium. Everyone just called it 'the Riverside' (and they still do) rendering the naming rights pretty worthless. However, when Bolton opened the Reebok Stadium, the company name is unavoidable and integral to the name of the stadium, making the whole process a lot more worthwhile for the company.

University of Phoenix Stadium is indeed quite a poor name for such an amazing facility. As an aside, I wonder why there are so many airline companies that sponsor arenas though. Airlines and Banks usually seem to dominate the naming rights market even though there are so many bigger corporations out there. Would love to know why that is.


Is the Arizona Cardinal's stadium named after the online/virtual/internet university (University of Phoenix)? I always thought the stadium sits on a campus somewhere in Phoenix.

As to the SkyDome/Rogers Centre issue, something similar happened in Britain a few years ago. Middlesborough opened a new stadium, called the BT Cellnet Riverside Stadium. Everyone just called it 'the Riverside' (and they still do) rendering the naming rights pretty worthless. However, when Bolton opened the Reebok Stadium, the company name is unavoidable and integral to the name of the stadium, making the whole process a lot more worthwhile for the company.
Similarly, people still call Huddersfield's stadium "The McAlpine Stadium" even though McAlpine's sponsorship ended 6 years ago. People don't readily accept name changes.

Is the Arizona Cardinal's stadium named after the online/virtual/internet university (University of Phoenix)? I always thought the stadium sits on a campus somewhere in Phoenix.

It's named after UoP, yes.

It isn't on a campus though (University of Phoenix does have physical campuses all over the country) it's on a plot of land in Glendale, a suburb of Phoenix. The Cardinals used to play at Sun Devil Stadium on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe though (obviously, the Sun Devils are the primary tenant of this stadium), that's another suburb of Phoenix.

A lot of things originally held at Sun Devil Stadium moved to UoP stadium when it was built, college football's Fiesta Bowl, for instance.

The Great Western Forum was actually a sponsored name, I didn't know that until recently, I guess because we didn't have Great Western bank branches in the East (it got absorbed by some other bank in the 90's).

Venue per year (Mil USD)
Barclays Center 20,00
Citi Field 20,00
Ricoh Arena 15,44
Reliant Stadium 12,50
Türk Telekom Arena 10,25
Staples Center 10,00
Allianz Arena 7,87
University of Phoenix Stadium 7,70
Fed Ex Stadium 7,41
Bank of America Stadium 7,00
Lincoln Financial Field 6,98
Lucas Oil Stadium 6,06
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,25
Emirates Stadium 4,88
Veltins-Arena 3,93
Commerzbank-Arena 3,93

Philippines:
FilOil Fling V Arena (former San Juan Arena)

The Great Western Forum was actually a sponsored name, I didn't know that until recently, I guess because we didn't have Great Western bank branches in the East (it got absorbed by some other bank in the 90's).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWYVnKP5eNY&feature=related

The worst naming rights deal has to be Syracuse's Carrier Dome

When the Carrier Dome was built in 1980, only one detail was certain about its future. It would always be called the Carrier Dome.

A $2.75 million gift from Mel Holm, the CEO of Carrier Corporation, gave Carrier the naming rights of the Dome in perpetuity. Other than the name, there was little else anyone could predict about what would become of a 50,000-seat stadium in Central New York.

Twenty-six years later, the construction of the Carrier Dome has paid big dividends for Syracuse University. The stadium attracts fans, athletes and media outlets to its doors as they all want to experience an event at one of the most renowned college athletic facilities in the nation.

The flood of corporate sponsorship naming right deals in the past decade calls into question how beneficial the agreement with Carrier was for Syracuse University and whether the SU administration should have been more hesitant to give a corporate sponsor an eternal claim to the Dome.

After Syracuse set the standard for corporate sponsor naming right deals in college sports in 1979, numerous expensive naming right deals have taken place.

Naming right deals provide funds for athletic departments, especially for the construction and renovation of a stadium. The deals have continued to become more lucrative.

Most recently, Minnesota announced in 2005 its new $235 million on-campus football stadium would be called TCF Financial Field. TCF Financial Corp. paid UM $35 million.

Louisville opened Papa John's Cardinals Stadium in 1998 after receiving $5 million from Papa John's Pizza. U of L is looking for a corporate sponsor to pay $40 million for the naming rights of a soon to be built basketball arena, according to various media reports.

Dr. Jake Crouthamel, who was athletic director at Syracuse at the time of the Carrier Dome's construction, said Syracuse ended up with a raw deal in hindsight. However, the deal seemed necessary back then.

"(The donation) was better than nothing and nothing was what we were dealing with," Crouthamel said. "In retrospect from a purely financial standpoint it was not a good deal, but it was the only deal out there and that to us was sure better than nothing."

The university wanted $26 million to build the ideal stadium for handling the chilly northeast winters. A majority of the money came from funding by New York state and the school received funds from businesses and alumni. The $2.75 million from Carrier provided the most money from a private investor.

Professor Michael Veley, who directs the sport management program at Syracuse, explained the agreement with Carrier could be likened more to a gift than an actual naming right transaction.

Veley described the deal as similar to a situation where an alumnus gives money to the school and as a result his or her name is permanently bestowed upon a physics building.

The school had been looking for a business to donate a charitable amount of money to fund the venue, Crouthamel said. When Syracuse could not find any takers, Holm, the chair of SU's Board of Trustees, decided to make a contribution from Carrier, possibly to strengthen the Syracuse-based business's community ties.

Crouthamel praised Holm for his donation at a time when Syracuse seemed desperate for a corporate sponsor. Crouthamel said nobody wanted to risk investing in a 50,000-seat stadium at a school of 15,000 students within a city infamous for its bitter winters.

Tom Benzel, the original manager of the Carrier Dome, believes obtaining the final donation from Carrier was crucial for its success today.

The planners for the Dome, which was built to replace the undersized Manley Field House, emphasized having every aspect of the construction figured out before beginning to build.

The contribution from Carrier left Syracuse with just $2 million of debt to pay-an amount of money that easily could be covered once the school began offering items to fans like box seats and season tickets.

Crouthamel thinks it would have been possible to fund the Dome even without the gift from Carrier. However, the school would have to go through debt service for a few years to pay off the amount overdue on the stadium.

The opportunity for Syracuse to rise into the black after one year through Carrier's donation was an offer that the university could not to pass up, especially considering the facility's success was difficult to foresee.

"I'm sure no one at the time had any inclination of the Carrier Dome being as visible and as prominent of a sports facility in the country as it has become," Crouthamel said.

Benzel said he felt 26 years ago the Dome would be a success simply because of the planning that went into the stadium. The Carrier Dome was placed right in the middle of a college campus and built with the proper materials that would allow it to last decades in the cold.

The Dome was built only with features essential to its existence. For example, the long Syracuse winters resulted in the decision to not place air conditioners in a venue sponsored by an air conditioning company.

Even though the Dome's planners stressed solely the essentials, having almost the entire budget at hand kept builders from cutting corners when it came to the stadium's design.

The Carrier Dome had been constructed not to be a fancy, ground-breaking structure. It was built to last, Benzel said.

Crouthamel maintains the Carrier Dome would not have reached the reputation it has today if it were not for a series of coincidences. If anybody anticipated these coincidences then the stadium might not have needed the safety net provided by Carrier.

"I don't think that we even knew what the potential was," Crouthamel said. "At the time, we were not thinking of basketball playing at the Dome. At the time we were not thinking of huge outdoor concerts being invited to play in the Dome. And these were all sources of revenue. In hindsight, we probably could have financed (the Dome with revenues from basketball and concerts)."



http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8655/name-game-su-bound-to-carrier-for-the-dome-as-others-find-more-lucrative-deals-1.1235435

Every new arena sounds like Corporate Whore Stadium to me. Even the gates into the arena are names after a sponsor, not A, B, C, D.

This whole money grabbing scheme will have jumped the shark when Madison Square Garden takes the money over the cache.

The Great American Ballpark for Baseball's Cincinnati Reds is actually a sponsored name from Great American Insurance which is generally mistaken by most people.

During its brief history, the stadium has been renamed several times, including:

The Reynolds Arena
The New Stadium
The Williamson Motors Stadium
The Darlington Arena
The 96.6 TFM Darlington Arena
The Balfour Webnet Darlington Arena
The Northern Echo Darlington Arena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darlington_Arena

rumours for lille talk about Cisco which is installed now in the region

added Emirates

Venue per year (Mil USD)
Barclays Center 20,00
Citi Field 20,00
Ricoh Arena 15,44
Reliant Stadium 12,50
Türk Telekom Arena 10,25
Staples Center 10,00
Allianz Arena 7,87
University of Phoenix Stadium 7,70
Fed Ex Stadium 7,41
Bank of America Stadium 7,00
Lincoln Financial Field 6,98
Lucas Oil Stadium 6,06
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,25
Emirates Stadium 4,88
Veltins-Arena 3,93
Commerzbank-Arena 3,93


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/05/football.media

How many naming rights deals are "in perpetuity"?

The only one I know for sure is Staples Center in Los Angeles.

Philips Stadion? :D

^^ + BayArena ?


------------------------------


Here in France, the insurance company "MMA" (Mutuelles du Mans Assurances) bought the naming rights of the new 25K stadium of Le Mans for the next 10 years : €13M (€1M per year + €3M during the construction of the stadium).

Venue per year (Mil USD)
Barclays Center 20,00
Citi Field 20,00
Ricoh Arena 15,44
Reliant Stadium 12,50
Türk Telekom Arena 10,25
Staples Center 10,00
Allianz Arena 7,87
University of Phoenix Stadium 7,70
Fed Ex Stadium 7,41
Bank of America Stadium 7,00
Lincoln Financial Field 6,98
Lucas Oil Stadium 6,06
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,25
Emirates Stadium 4,88
Veltins-Arena 3,93
Commerzbank-Arena 3,93
MMArena 1,36

Venue per year (Mil USD)
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,25
Veltins-Arena 3,93



Source?

Following this (http://www.faz.net/s/RubFB1F9CD53135470AA600A7D04B278528/Doc~E6C43A6B3285742988375F87F34003DD6~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html), Dortmund gets just 20 Million € for the contract - 2005-2011!

Btw, it isn't worth for the Signal Iduna Company, the Dortmund fans hate this name. Signal Iduna Park couldn't prevail as the name of the former Westfalenstadion. To complete this, the city council of Dortmund named a street nearby the stadium "Am Westfalenstadion":ohno:

Schalke gets 50 Million € for the 10-year contract with the Veltins brewery!

My list of the worst stadium names in Germany:

#1 Commerzbank Arena :bash:
#2 Easy Credit Stadion :ohno:
#3 Imtech Arena (wtf is Imtech???????????)
#4 Signal Iduna Park :banana:even the letters on the roof are blue, the nickname among the fans (except BVB-fans) is Signal Iduna Sarg [Sarg=coffin]

Are you sure? ;-)

Worst german stadium names definitly are:
Glücksgas-Stadion, Trolli-Arena & Schauinslandreisen-Arena

I like Commerzbank Arena personally. It fits to a banking-city like Frankfurt perfectly.

Are you sure? ;-)

Worst german stadium names definitly are:
Glücksgas-Stadion, Trolli-Arena & Schauinslandreisen-Arena

My list was about stadiums of the Bundesliga, generally ^^ this names are the worst or the funniest:nuts: (btw, where is "Glücksgas-Stadion" and "Trolli-Arena" ??*lol*)

I like Commerzbank Arena personally. It fits to a banking-city like Frankfurt perfectly.

I don't like the word "Commerz", "Deutsche Bank Arena" would fit perfectly!

Glücksgas-Stadion is Dynamo Dresden

and

Trolli-Arena is Greuther Fürth, formerly known as Playmobil-Stadion

Stadium naming rights are now a necessary evil in modern professional sports. However 3 of the biggest / newest / most profitable / most evil stadiums in the US currently do not have corporate names attached to them , at least, none yet: Yankee Stadium, Cowboys Stadium and The New Meadowlands Stadium. Meanwhile, LA's proposed NFL stadium already secured corporate naming rights worth $700m from Farmers Insurance. Such whores those Angelenos are!

How many naming rights deals are "in perpetuity"?

The only one I know for sure is Staples Center in Los Angeles.

hmmmm..howabout the Astros' Enron Field =)

hmmmm..howabout the Astros' Enron Field =)

Its called minute maid park now. I liked it at first untill I was told it was named after a softs drinks company.

Such whores those Angelenos are!

Leiweke is from St Louis and Anschutz is from Kansas. :cheers:

(Apologise for the thread bump)

Sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games prohibit the use of corporate-sponsored names on stadiums, construing the practice as a form of ambush marketing. Any stadium that uses a corporate-purchased name must always be referred to in all event-related media (including live broadcasts) by a generic name (e.g. General Motors Place was referred to as "Canada Hockey Place" during the 2010 Winter Olympics).

Why is the use of corporate-sponsored names in stadiums prohibited at the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup?

Because it lessens the value of the World Cup/Olympics' other sponsors if the stadiums can be sponsored by whoever. The events are big enough that they can demand that the stadiums not be called by their sponsored name and get away with it. For example, it's much better if you're the IOC and can tell Coke that their logo will be plastered everywhere, etc., and that no stadium can be called Pepsi Arena or something like that. The IOC/FIFA doesn't get a cut of naming rights deals so they don't want those other names around when they can sell their own sponsorships for more without it.

I believe you are allowed to call it by its sponsored name if its a World Cup/Olympics sponsor. For example, if there was an Adidas Stadium in Brazil, FIFA would probably be happy to call it Adidas Stadium at the World Cup and make their sponsor all kinds of happy.

The same rule applies at the IRB Rugby World Cup - Westpac Stadium had to be called the "Wellington Regional Stadium", for example.

Because it lessens the value of the World Cup/Olympics' other sponsors if the stadiums can be sponsored by whoever. The events are big enough that they can demand that the stadiums not be called by their sponsored name and get away with it. For example, it's much better if you're the IOC and can tell Coke that their logo will be plastered everywhere, etc., and that no stadium can be called Pepsi Arena or something like that. The IOC/FIFA doesn't get a cut of naming rights deals so they don't want those other names around when they can sell their own sponsorships for more without it.

I believe you are allowed to call it by its sponsored name if its a World Cup/Olympics sponsor. For example, if there was an Adidas Stadium in Brazil, FIFA would probably be happy to call it Adidas Stadium at the World Cup and make their sponsor all kinds of happy.

The O2 will be North Greenwich Arena for London 2012 and the Ricoh Arena becomes the City of Coventry Stadium.

Also Sports Direct Arena will be called St James's Park

Also Sports Direct Arena will be called St James's Park

You're right, forgot about that one!!

:rofl:

As far as i know
(all in USD/year)

Etihad Stadium 24,00
MetLife Stadium 20,00
Barclays Center 20,00
Citi Field 20,00
Ricoh Arena 15,44
Reliant Stadium 12,50
Levi's Stadium 11,02
Türk Telekom Arena 10,25
Staples Center 10,00
Allianz Arena 7,87
Otkrytie Arena 7,87
University of Phoenix Stadium 7,70
Fed Ex Stadium 7,41
Bank of America Stadium 7,00
Lincoln Financial Field 6,98
Lucas Oil Stadium 6,06
Field at Mile High 6,00
Signal-Iduna-Park 5,25
Veltins-Arena 3,93
Commerzbank-Arena 3,93
Allianz Nice Stadium 2,54

According to GEwinnens post Veltins Arenas sponsorship deal is more valuable ????

Thanks.
updated the list and added at the first post

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3232/76192887.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/76192887.jpg/)

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/5/8/4313344/49ers-levis-stadium-biggest-naming-rights-contracts
---

Are there some stadiums that will never see a naming rights deal.

Some doesn´t have them for some reasons but are there any stadiums or arena that will never see a naming rights deal because of the value of the original name or for historic reasons.

Off the top of my head i can think of these.

Parken - Copenhagen
Madison Square Garden - New York City
Wembley Stadium - London
Camp Nou - Barcelona
Estadio Santiago Bernabeu - Madrid
Croke Park - Dublin
Twickenham - London
Parc Des Princes - Paris
Stade Vélodrome - Marseille
Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion - Moscow
Ullevaal Stadiun - Oslo
Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne
Lord´s Cricket Ground - London
Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho (Maracanã) - Rio de Janeiro
Estadio Azteca - Mexico City
Ibrox Stadium - Glasgow
Celtic Park - Glasgow
Rungrado May Day Stadium - Pyöngyang

And probably just a bunch more.

Are there some stadiums that will never see a naming rights deal.

Some doesn´t have them for some reasons but are there any stadiums or arena that will never see a naming rights deal because of the value of the original name or for historic reasons.

Off the top of my head i can think of these.

Parken - Copenhagen
Madison Square Garden - New York City
Wembley Stadium - London
Camp Nou - Barcelona
Estadio Santiago Bernabeu - Madrid
Croke Park - Dublin
Twickenham - London
Parc Des Princes - Paris
Stade Vélodrome - Marseille
Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion - Moscow
Ullevaal Stadiun - Oslo
Nya Ullevi - Gothenburg
Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne
Lord´s Cricket Ground - London
Estádio Jornalista Mário Filho (Maracanã) - Rio de Janeiro
Estadio Azteca - Mexico City
Ibrox Stadium - Glasgow
Celtic Park - Glasgow
Rungrado May Day Stadium - Pyöngyang

And probably just a bunch more.
I would suspect that all of these places are either very old, paid for by the taxpayers, or built by slave labor (Moscow and Pyongyang in particular).

There is also a mistake in the chart that RMB2007 got from SBNation. The Gillette Stadium listing says $240 million total/15 years/$8 million per. If the $240 million figure is accurate, then the annual amount should be $16 million per year; and if the $8 million per year figure is accurate, then the total amount paid out will be $120 million.

I would suspect that all of these places are either very old, paid for by the taxpayers, or built by slave labor (Moscow and Pyongyang in particular).

You are probably right about some of them and maybe some of them are old but they are well maintained and also used alot
I would think that a sponsor name in Madrid or Barcelona will costs gazzilions.


Wembley, Parken and I think also Ullevaal is privately financed, in Europe we don't invent some tourist tax to pay our stadiums so I'm guessing that most of the european ones on this list are privately financed.

Both Parken and Wembley use their name for other purposes and is almost seen as a brand.
The Company behind Parken is Called Parken Sport & Entertainment and that wouldn't work with a sponsor included in the stadium name.

Brøndby Stadion in Copenhagen is also one of does rare cases where a sponsor name has never been used.
The club payed for the stadium by themselves but the local council sold the old stadium for 1 danish kroner or something like that.

A few years ago they put the stadium name up for sale but a crazy rich man gave alot of millions to call the stadium for Brøndby Stadion :lol:

But alot of the German stadiums have getting some financial support from the local city halls because of the 2006 FIFA world cup and its probably also the case with other host nations in the other huge competitions.


But else I can only think of the Olympic stadiums in Berlin, München, Helsinki, Stockholm, Rome and perhaps London as being financed 100 % by the state, county and/or cityhall.

Pretty much MOST old stadiums and non-American stadiums.

Cowboys Stadium was supposed to have corporate branding (either AT&T or Exxon) but I'm glad they haven't... yet.

Many of the pro stadiums in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, England Australia and Austria has sponsor names so its not just an American thing.

Many of the pro stadiums in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, England Australia and Austria has sponsor names so its not just an American thing.

I know it's not just an American thing, but it seems that it's more common here.

Even college stadiums and arenas have corporate names. Hell, there's even a high school football stadium out in Midland, Texas that has a corporate name:
Grande Communications Stadium (http://www.kylgrafx.com/rebs/grandecomm.htm)

Wembley, Parken and I think also Ullevaal is privately financed, in Europe we don't invent some tourist tax to pay our stadiums so I'm guessing that most of the european ones on this list are privately financed.
Actually Wembley was paid for by five different groups, with the Football Association being the only one that was not part of the government. So I would assume the great majority of that place was built with tax dollars.

The (Boston, Milwaukee) Atlanta Braves have never played in a corporate named stadium, and they've been around for a LONG time:
South End Grounds 1871-1894
Congress Street Grounds 1894
South End Grounds 1894-1914
Fenway Park 1914-1915
Braves Field 1915-1952
Milwaukee County Stadium 1953-1965
Atlanta-Fulton County 1966-1996
Turner Field 1997-Pres.

Actually Wembley was paid for by five different groups, with the Football Association being the only one that was not part of the government. So I would assume the great majority of that place was built with tax dollars.

Are you sure about that, if Wikipedia is correct only 2 of the contributers are paying with tax money.

Sport England (lottery Fund)
The FA
Wembley National Stadium limited (I'm guessing private money)
The department for Culture, Media and Sport
London Development Agency.

Are you sure about that, if Wikipedia is correct only 2 of the contributers are paying with tax money.

Sport England (lottery Fund)
The FA
Wembley National Stadium limited (I'm guessing private money)
The department for Culture, Media and Sport
London Development Agency.
Sport England's funding comes from both the lottery and the general treasury. They were pretty much breaking even before, so their chunk of Wembley had to be from the government. I had thought that WNSL was governmental, but after some more digging it turns out that it's a wholly owned subsidiary of the FA. So I'll rephrase and say three out of the four, but i don't know why the FA needed a subsidiary in the mix, unless they were hiding something.

Never thought I'd see it but you may find that Anfield will be called the ooREDoo Anfield Stadium soon!

If we can get £150-£200m to pay for it, then I don't think you'd see too many Liverpool fans complaining apart from the real traditionalists.

We need the money to keep up and although the TV companies would have to call it by it's sponsor name, all LFC fans would always call it Anfield!

I found sad the corporate names on sport arenas, but many teams have no other way to get funding for such an expensive thing as building an stadium. So, for most clubs it is:

a) Sell stadium name rigths in order to getting income to pay the new arena.
b) In the case of a city owned stadium available, get a lease contract with the owners (which probably is the cheapest choice, but actually the stadium is not your own).

There's another way, not very popular these days:

c) Rising ticket prices (both single and season) for years as a way of funding, and saving money cleverly signing up cheap talented players and selling them with high profit. And even if you manage to do that, you'll probably still need additional funding, and the best stadium you can afford will probably be not as good as if you had chosen a) or b). Anyway, cleanest choice in my opinion. The naming right holder might eventually go bankrupt, or whatever.