Stadium Naming Rights: The New Cash Cow Scotzine July 8, 2011 Finances, Premiership, Scottish Football 5 Comments Arsenal have the Emirates Stadium, Scarborough have the McCain stadium, Inverness Caley’s stadium is called the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and Stirling Albion’s ground is called the Doubletree Dunblane Stadium. Today Manchester City announced a sponsorship deal with airline company Etihad, reportedly worth around £300 million over ten years. The deal includes sponsorship of the area around the stadium and various other Manchester City interests. The City deal blows apart the Emirates airline deal to pay £100 million for their stadium sponsorship of Arsenal’s new ground, which runs out at the end of Season 2020-2021. The deal also included sponsoring of the club’s playing kit, giving the airline the right to advertising in the new stadium, merchandising rights and the right to promote and sell its official airline services by referring to the Arsenal brand. In German Football, they have sponsored stadiums galore, from the Allianz Arena of Bayern Munich to VFB Stuttgart’s Mercedes-Benz Arena to Eintracht Frankfurt’s Commerzbank-Arena. So if it is good for the Bundesliga why shouldn’t it be good enough for Scottish Football? Scotland’s National Stadium, Hampden Park, has its main stand sponsored by Telecommunications giant British Telecom [BT], who ploughed in £5 million in 1998, and in 2008 the deal was renewed for a further six years worth £2.5 million. And as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, Inverness Caledonian Thistle’s stadium is called the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium. Tulloch Construction, who are Inverness’ biggest shareholder also paid part of the development cost of the stadium. Scottish clubs are suffering financially in the current climate, even more so given the influx of funds across the border in England. Even the Old Firm are financially worse off than they were ten years ago, and while many fans would be dead against the likes of Ibrox and Celtic Park being renamed in return for money. It is money that is badly needed in the Scottish game let alone in the Old Firm coffers. But despite this ‘reality’ many fans would be up in arms as I have stated, sentiments shared by journalist Ollie Holt of the Mirror, who commented on his Twitter page: “There are many ways in which the current owners of Manchester City have shown class. Renaming the stadium after a sponsor isn’t one of them. I know part of the answer is FFP [Financial Fair Play] but if City have got so much cash, why do they have to sell a piece of their soul for stadium naming rights? Many City fans saying they don’t care about stadium renaming because new stadium never had an identity anyway. Sad comment on the game. Is it acceptable then to change name of team too? Presumably all in favour of Etihad Stadium would be fine with Etihad City as name of team.” Likewise Newcastle United fans were up in arms over owner Mike Ashley’s decision to rename St. James’ Park, the sportsdirect @ St. James’ Park stadium. Hopefully Mr Ashley let his wife name their kids, because he certainly doesn’t have the knack for picking names. Too this day Newcastle United officially play at the sportsdirect @ St. James’ Park stadium, however it is rarely called that, even in official publications – including the match programme which still refers to the ground as St. James’ Park. Ollie Holt continued his onslaught on the new cash cow of renaming stadiums by claiming: “If you defile the stadium by prostituting its name, you destroy part of the experience.” However the Newcastle model proves that the renaming of the stadium has had little or no effect, after the initial mutiny in the terracing. Given that the fans still refer to it as St. James’ Park. The Old Firm have already considered renaming their stadiums in recent years, but to date no such plan has been accepted. But such a decision, which obviously would bring on criticism from the fans, would bring in tens of millions of pounds over a certain number of years. The deal would certainly not be in the Arsenal or the Manchester City price bracket, but it certainly would not be as little as what BT paid for sponsoring the National stadium. Former Rangers Chairman Alastair Johnston ruled out the re-naming of Ibrox in 2009. A decision backed by the majority of the club’s shareholders then. He said: “One thing we will not be putting in this business plan, or in future business plans, there is no plan to sell the naming rights to this stadium. Ibrox is non-negotiable.” And last month new Rangers Director of Operations and Commercial Activity Ali Russell, stated likewise: “Selling the naming rights is not something we’d go out and look at. Ibrox is synonymous with Rangers Football Club so I don’t think it’s something we would consider at this stage. We’re very protective of our intellectual property and Ibrox is synonymous with Rangers.” There were rumours a number of years ago that Global Sports Brand, Nike, were planning on offering Celtic a financial package that would see the club receive around £25 million, plus the money to cover the building of a new Main Stand that would have increased the stadium’s capacity to around 75,000, in exchange Nike would have the naming rights to the stadium. This rumoured plan never materialised, however such an amount for either side of the Old Firm would help both clubs significantly in the transfer market, reducing debts and even covering maintenance costs of the stadium. The stadium may have been called ‘Nike Park, Nike Celtic Park or the Celtic Nike Arena’ or another variation, but the fans would always call it Celtic Park, Paradise or Parkhead. Club merchandise and publications would obviously refer to the stadium as Nike Celtic Park, as would the media, but the name change would not result in the ‘destroying part of the experience’ as Ollie Holt commented. The soul of the stadium, the experience, is not in the name of the stadium but of the atmosphere created by the fans, by the action on the park. Today, the modern game in Scottish Football is losing part of its soul anyway, as the fans are being priced out of attending games. Selling naming rights to the stadium, could ultimately help to reduce costs for at least a number of years, to allow the club to reduce ticket prices to entice the fans back to the games. Ultimately Scottish clubs must look for new avenues of bringing in cash to keep their clubs in the game, and the Stadium Naming Rights option is possibly, not only the easiest way of bringing in much-needed finance but also the least costly to the clubs also. Maybe just maybe we could see a Scotzine Park further down the line, possibly instead of Ibrox Park. 5 Responses trueblue July 9, 2011 scotzine park my arse you need to stay off the buckfast ya muppet Daven July 11, 2011 I find Ollie Holt’s stance on this topic as very short sighted. In his column he talks about Chesterfield moving from Saltergate at the start of last season to b2net Stadium He mentions some views from Chesterfield fans who reckons the stadium name was unimportant and that the cash generated secured the clubs future and helped them win promotion to League 2. To the above Holt’s comments were, “Which is fine. But it misses the point. What happens when they have a bad year and find themselves back in League 2”. Sadly for Holt it is him who is missing the point. If money generated from Stadium naming rights secures a clubs future – albeit short term – than there can be absolutely no arguments to that move otherwise there is no club. Football is all about money these days and all avenues of cash generation have to be explored and open to all clubs. If Rangers were to rename Ibrox Stadium and it generated say £12m over 4 years then it has to be considered. Probably an option more likely to be accepted by traditionalist fans would be the renaming of individual stands instead of the Stadium itself. One problem in attracting big companies to pay to have their name/brands associated with Rangers or Celtic would be how it affects sales. Say Ibrox was rename Ibrox Carling Stadium – sure many Gers fans may start drinking more Carling but how many fans of other clubs in Scotland would do the opposite and refuse to drink Carling? Same for Celtic – say Parkhead was renamed Celtic Curly Wurly Park – sure more Celtic fans would buy Curly Wurly bars but Rangers fans would never touch the chocolate and soft toffee treat again and would probably refuse to buy any other Kraft/Cadbury brands. bhoyo67 July 12, 2011 Celtic or Rangers would not fall into this catagory of selling their respective souls for shekels in return for the name of the clubs stadium to be changed. Andy M July 12, 2011 When £25 million-plus was on the table and with the state of Scottish Football, currently as it is, they made decide sooner or later than a few years with a sponsor on the side of the stadium would be more beneficial than safeguarding their respective ‘souls’. When business and money is involved, there is no such thing as loyalty or souls. And if either club decided on selling the rights for a few years, I would not be upset or angry over it. In reality if the fans thought of it in a business sense then they too would think it is a good idea. Sadly not many care about the business side of things – just the winning and the name of their respective clubs. bhoyo67 July 12, 2011 Andy football clubs are businesses,and if there is serious money on the table clubs could be swayed,but i reckon what you say is right, trophies matter and with clubs like CFC tradition is a large part of the clubs attraction.Same with RFC.