Topic: Value of Naming Rights Fall

[xerxes1]

An interesting, slightly historic, but undiscussed piece which will no doubt be a factor in FSG's thinking on a new stadium:

Jaguars Stadium Rights Deal: The New Reality?
Sep. 2 2010 - 12:20 pm | 177 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments
By TOM VAN RIPER
During the rough economy, big money franchises like the New York Giants and Jets, Dallas Cowboys and even the Washington Nationals have been sitting out the stadium naming rights game, waiting for the market to turn rather than settle for (what they see as) a lousy deal.

It could be quite a wait, if the recent Jacksonville Jaguars deal is any indication. The Jaguars just completed details of a naming rights deal with locally-based EverBank that was first announced a few weeks ago, a five-year agreement worth a reported $3 million annually. What stands out isn’t so much the annual dollars, about half what many NFL stadium naming rights deals fetch. That’s expected for a small, struggling market.

What’s different is the commitment – five years means that EverBank was persuaded to test the waters, nothing more. That’s in contrast to Lincoln Financial (Eagles), Bank of America (Panthers), and Reliant Energy (Texans), among others, all in for 20 years or more.

Jacksonville isn’t New York or Dallas, but the Jags’ agreement may represent the same new reality that pro athletes face – shorter contracts, less guaranteed money and constant re-evaluation.

http://blogs.forbes.com/tomvanriper/2010/09/02/jaguars-stadium-rights-deal-the-new-reality/

[soxfan]

My gut tells me they won't have sponsored naming rights, based on the lack of such at Fenway Park. But if they do, I'd guess they would keep 'Anfield' in it somehow, such as 'Coca Cola Ground At Anfield', so as not to upset the core supporters too much.

[Alf]

To put that article into context the Jackson Jaguars are like Bolton moving from Burnden Park to the Reebok stadium. Baring in mind the cost of moving stadium if the club do decide to go down that route then a sponsored stadium is nailed on IMO. We are not just looking at what they've done at Fenway but this business model at Arsenal they have admiration for.

[CraigDS]

My knowledge of NFL isn't amazing - so how would the Jaguars compare in a global fanbase and general coverage it would give a sponsored stadium as we would?

[soxfan]

My knowledge of NFL isn't amazing - so how would the Jaguars compare in a global fanbase and general coverage it would give a sponsored stadium as we would?

In comparison, they would generally be a 10th-15th place finisher in the Premier League. Mediocre. Not a good comp for Liverpool.

Here's a good table of many North American naming rights contracts, though it is old (2007?): http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/stadiumnames.html

In viewing it, good Liverpool comps would be (with yearly cost):
FedEx Field    Federal Express    Washington Redskins    $7.6 million    2025
Fleetcenter    Fleet Bank    Boston Celtics, Bruins    $2 million    2010  (this is now TD Garden - don't know the deal)
Lincoln Financial Field    Lincoln Financial Group    Philadelphia Eagles    $6.7 million    2022
Staples Center    Staples    Los Angeles Lakers, Kings, Clippers, Sparks    $5.8 million    2019

As you can see from the big list, the numbers vary wildly. I suspect it depends upon the team's popularity and also on what signage, etc. is part of the contract.

[CraigDS]

Thanks. That gives me an idea of the sort of level they are, but what about comparing numbers like for like.

What sort of TV coverage would they give globally compared to us? As far as I'm aware NFL is mainly only watched in the US, whereas the PL is a worldwide watched sport an must have a much wider audience?

[xerxes1]

To be clear, my OP was not to compare the Jaguars to LFC, we are way above them, it was to highlight the change in approach to naming rights which this reflects.

The Reliant Stadium in Houston cost $352m, and was sponsored to $300m in 2002.

[soxfan]

Thanks. That gives me an idea of the sort of level they are, but what about comparing numbers like for like.

What sort of TV coverage would they give globally compared to us? As far as I'm aware NFL is mainly only watched in the US, whereas the PL is a worldwide watched sport an must have a much wider audience?

I think that's hard to calculate. We're dealing with numbers from all sorts of different countries. According to wikipedia (I know, I know  ) "Promoted as "The Greatest Show On Earth", the Premier League is the world's most popular and most watched sporting league, followed worldwide by over half a billion people in 202 countries" but it also says "As of the 2007-08 season, television rights for the 20-team Premier League are valued at close to £1bn each season. Based on July 2007 exchange rates, this is only marginally less than what American football's 32-team NFL receives from its TV contracts."

So it's a bit confusing as to who's worth more media-wise. Both leagues are very powerful. According to Forbes, NFL teams tend to be worth more than the average PL club, but I don't know how that translates to media value per club.  I think it is fair to say that naming rights would likely be pretty comparable.

[Brian Blessed]

Isn't the Emirates naming rights worth about 3 million a year?

Edit: Actually, according to this:

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/arsenal_set_for_cash_boost_as_emirates_acknowledge_shirt_deal_is_worth_more/

it would be about 2 million a year.