Do you think naming of a sports stadium REALLY benefits it corporate sponsor financially?

Citibank, with bailout money, is going forward with its plan to spend $400 million to name the new Mets stadium, Citified.

I happen to attend Mariners' games on a regular basis at Safeco Field, and have done so for years. That doesn't make me one iota more inclined to buy Safeco Insurance. In fact, I've never given it a thought. Same goes if I go to games in Tropicana Field, Coors Stadium, or any other corporate named stadium. I would still get my insurance through the Hartford, buy Minute Maid orange juice, and drink Budweiser.

It's my feeling that naming a stadium after a corporate sponsor provides absolutely NO beneficial impact beyond image--so why should we put up with Citibank using so much of the money we have loaned it in such a wasteful manner?

1 Answer

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I totally agree. In fact, I just completed a survey in which I was asked to name corporate sponsors for everything from the Olympics, to golf, to NASCAR, to museums and exhibitions, and found I could not name even one. I believe they should have saved the money for those naming rights in this economy with taxpayer money. It is just wrong on principal.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.