Stadium naming rights deals have become a lucrative source of revenue for sports franchise owners, but shareholders should not expect these deals to positively impact the company’s stock price. Sports Economist Michael Leeds studied statement rights deals over a 25-year period and has been quoted as saying “we find little evidence that the purchase of naming rights had a statistically, significant impact on the value of the companies that bought them, even less evidence that the impact was positive, and no evidence at all that there was a permanent, positive impact.” Some marketing experts will go as far as to say companies investing in stadium rights lose value, pointing to several companies that experienced financial distress or bankruptcy shortly after the deal was signed (i.e. Citigroup, ProPlayer, Trans World Airlines, Adelphia Communications).

Howie Long-Short: Rams owner Sam Kroenke is looking to sign the most expensive naming rights deal in NFL history. It’s been reported that Kroenke is asking for $600 million over 20 years. To put that number in perspective, the last 2 NFL stadium rights deals combined equaled $554 million (Falcons/Mercedes Benz (DDAIF) – $324 million/27 years, Vikings/U.S. Bank (USB) – $220 million/25 years) and just prior to making the move to Los Angeles, the Rams signed a deal worth just $158 million over 20 years for a potential new stadium in St. Louis. I wouldn’t want to be a shareholder in the company that ends up lining Kroenke’s pockets.

Fan Marino: Molson-Coors (TAP) has the best stadium rights deal in all of sports. Not only do they not pay for the naming rights to the Rockies’ Denver home (Coors Field), they have naming rights in perpetuity; and it cost them just $15 million, back in 1990. In March, the Rockies signed a 30-year extension with the state division that owns Coors Field; meaning TAP brand awareness will continue for another generation of baseball fans, on the house.

NFL Is Draining These Massive Companies Dry for Stadium Naming Rights


Colleges & Universities that were once were steadfast against beer company sponsorships are now coming around on the revenue potential associated with beer sales, in stadium signage, media and licensing opportunities. Texas, which began to sell beer in 2015, reported $1.3 million in profits from beer sales during the 2016 season; so it’s no surprise that others are looking to get in on the action. 36 on-campus stadiums will sell beer during the 2017 season (with 14 more pouring at off-campus venues), while the number of school marks and intellectual property being used in beer marketing campaigns at an all-time high. There is no doubt that the change in thinking is driven by revenue potential, but school administrators maintain that controlling beer sales will keep students safe, helping to curb the binge drinking that occurs prior to and during halftime of games.

Colleges chug beer dollars

Howie Long-Short: This makes sense, though I’m surprised given the politics.

David Price/Earnings: Beer marketers’ thirst for new income streams have found a new home in the perfect spot; colleges & universities. Sounds like a slam dunk to me.

Fan Marino: I’m not sure it’s going to curb the binge drinking, but it certainly seems sensible. Why shouldn’t adults of legal age be permitted to purchase a beer at a football game?