Naming Rights - sponsorship
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Naming Ri ghts
Dec 2012
NAMING
RIGHTS
International Marketing Reports Ltd
33 Chapel Street
Buckfastleigh
TQ11 0AB
UK
Tel +44 (0) 1364 642224
info@imrsponsorship.com
www.imrsponsorship.com
ISSN 2050-4888
eISSN 2050-4896
Copyright ©2012 by International Marketing Reports Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher and copyright owner. While every effort has
been made to ensure accuracy of the information, advice and comment in this publication, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for
any errors.
2Sponsorship Today methodology
Sponsorship Today reports are created through the collection of data from news feeds, web searches,
industry and news publications. Where sponsorship deals have not been reported, the Sponsorship
Today team actively seeks data through web searches and contacting sponsors, agencies and rights
holders.
Most sponsorship deals are not reported and, of those that are, the majority do not provide accurate
fee or duration data. IMR estimates unreported fee values through comparisons with similar deals,
contacts with industry insiders and through its long experience of creating sponsorship analysis
reports.
There is no guarantee of accuracy of estimates. The sponsorship industry is also known to overstate
sponsorship fee values. Such reports are frequently based on the maximum potential value of a deal
and might include the total should all incentive clauses (such as sporting success) be met and no
morality clauses invoked. In such cases, rights holders rarely achieve their maximum values.
IMR also states all in-kind deals as an estimated cash value.
Estimated values listed in this report are marked in red, whereas reported values are marked in black.
All values throughout this report are given in US dollars.
3CONTENTS
Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 6
Growth and acceptance of naming rights ............................................................................................ 6
National cultural differences ................................................................................................................ 6
Indoor arenas’ high value .................................................................................................................... 7
Financial services biggest naming rights investor ............................................................................... 7
USA biggest naming rights market ...................................................................................................... 7
Durations vary according to value and market maturity ...................................................................... 7
The future ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Naming rights market overview by country ....................................................................................... 9
United States ................................................................................................................................. 10
United Kingdom ............................................................................................................................. 11
Germany ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Australia ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Japan ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Canada .......................................................................................................................................... 12
South Africa ................................................................................................................................... 12
BRIC nations .................................................................................................................................. 13
Scandinavia ................................................................................................................................... 13
Naming rights duration ....................................................................................................................... 14
Duration by country ........................................................................................................................ 14
Duration by value ........................................................................................................................... 15
Unexpected naming rights changes .............................................................................................. 16
Naming rights spend by national source ......................................................................................... 17
Naming rights market overview by sponsoring industry ............................................................... 19
Financial services .......................................................................................................................... 19
Telecommunications ...................................................................................................................... 20
Airlines ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Automotive ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Energy ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Retail .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Naming rights by company ................................................................................................................ 23
Multiple naming rights deals .......................................................................................................... 23
Naming rights objectives ................................................................................................................ 24
Naming rights market overview by sport ......................................................................................... 25
American Football .......................................................................................................................... 27
Basketball ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Soccer ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Baseball ......................................................................................................................................... 28
Rugby ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Global naming rights sponsorship deals by country ...................................................................... 30
4Table of charts and tables
Table 1. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by country ............................................................. 9
Chart 1. Naming rights deals by number of deals by country (%) ........................................................ 10
Chart 2. Naming rights deals by overall value of deals by country (%) ................................................ 10
Chart 3. Naming rights deals by average value of deals by country ($m) ............................................ 11
Table 2. Naming rights deals by duration by country (years) ............................................................... 14
Chart 4. Naming rights deals by duration by country ............................................................................ 15
Table 3. The relationship between naming rights value and duration .................................................. 15
Table 4. Change of naming rights due to corporate takeover (USA) .................................................... 16
Table 5. Global sponsorship naming rights by sponsors’ origin ........................................................... 17
Chart 5. Naming rights deals by company headquarters – number of deals ........................................ 17
Chart 6. Naming rights deals by company headquarters – total value of deals ................................... 18
Table 6. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by industry sector ............................................... 19
Chart 7. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by number of deals (%) .................................... 19
Chart 8. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by value of deals (%) ....................................... 20
Chart 9. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by average deal value ...................................... 20
Table 7. Leading corporate investors in naming rights by annual spend ............................................. 23
Table 8. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by sport ............................................................... 25
Chart 10. Global naming rights by sport by number of deals (%) ......................................................... 25
Chart 11. Global naming rights by sport by value of deals (%) ............................................................. 26
Chart 12. Global naming rights by sport by average value of deals ($m) ............................................. 26
Table 9. Sponsorship naming rights deals Australia ($m p.a) ............................................................. 30
Table 10. Sponsorship naming rights deals Austria, Brazil, Canada ($m p.a) ..................................... 31
Table 11. Sponsorship naming rights deals Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji ($m p.a) .... 32
Table 12. Sponsorship naming rights deals Finland, France, Germany ($m p.a) ................................ 33
Table 13. Sponsorship naming rights deals Germany ($m p.a) ........................................................... 34
Table 14. Sponsorship naming rights deals Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan ($m p.a) ................................ 35
Table 15. Sponsorship naming rights deals Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Ph’pines ($m p.a) . 36
Table 16. Sponsorship naming rights deals Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden ($m p.a) 37
Table 17. Sponsorship naming rights deals Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK ($m p.a) .................... 38
Table 18. Sponsorship naming rights deals UK ($m p.a) ..................................................................... 39
Table 19. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 40
Table 20. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 41
Table 21. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 42
Table 22. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 43
Table 23. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 44
Table 24. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 45
Table 25. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 46
Table 26. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 47
Table 27. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 48
Table 28. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 49
Table 29. Sponsorship naming rights deals USA ($m p.a) ................................................................... 50
5Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GROWTH AND ACCEPTANCE OF NAMING RIGHTS
Although there are has been no previous major global analysis on the naming rights
market, it is clear that this area of sponsorship has grown rapidly in the past 20 years.
That growth is in the number of rights and total value, (now estimated at $750 million per
year) the diversity of regions and sports that have naming rights deals and the acceptance
among fans. This report analysed 548 deals in 32 countries and the number of new deals
and markets shows no sign of abating.
Manchester City’s $30 million per year deal with Etihad has broken the record for the value
of a stadium naming and, although some have claimed that an element of this deal has
been designed to channel money from Abu Dhabi into the club (which is owned by the
emirate’s Sheikh Mansour) to get round UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules, it is clear that
major rights holders with global appeal, do surpass a market value of $20 million for
naming rights.
NATIONAL CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Despite the growth in acceptance of naming rights, there are still major cultural differences
in the structure of the deals.
In the USA, where the concept really took off, it is the primary sponsorship revenue source
for many of the rights holders. In baseball and American Football, for example, there is no
jersey sponsorship and as such the stadium is the prime branding property.
US fans, wary of jersey sponsorship, readily appear to accept stadium naming and are
much more accepting of traditional stadia names changing to take a corporate moniker
than counterparts in other countries.
In Europe the general rule has been that new build stadia can successfully attract naming
rights, but historical venues are much more resistant to change because of fan and media
reactions. This is particularly the case in soccer where the stadium is seen as sacrosanct
by many fans.
In other European sports, such as rugby and cricket, name changes are more readily
accepted by fans although prestigious national stadia, such as Wimbledon and Roland
Garros (tennis), Twickenham (Rugby) and Lords (cricket) are more resistant.
In Latin countries, including Brazil, Italy and Spain, naming rights deals are still very rare.
This is down to several factors including cultural opposition, a lack of new stadia coming on
stream and a less mature sponsorship industry.
6Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
INDOOR ARENAS’ HIGH VALUE
Although the largest deals tend to be for top American Football, baseball and European
soccer stadia, the real boom in naming rights is for indoor arena. This is partly the result of
an increase in the number built. Traditionally all major cities had significant ‘outdoor’ stadia
for soccer, American Football, baseball, rugby etc. However, indoor arenas were much less
common. The rise of basketball, ice hockey and cultural events such as pop concerts,
meant that there is a demand for such facilities, although they are often funded by local
government as few individual sports rights holders have the resources to build and operate
such arenas.
Because indoor arenas can be used on a daily basis, they frequently have a high level of
cumulative attendance and profile, which makes them attractive to sponsors, hence
relatively high rights values in comparison to their size.
FINANCIAL SERVICES BIGGEST NAMING RIGHTS INVESTOR
In keeping with most sectors in sponsorship, the financial services sector is the biggest
investor with 38% of deals by value and 28% by number. Other big investors are airlines,
telecommunications and car manufacturers.
USA BIGGEST NAMING RIGHTS MARKET
The United States is by far the biggest market for naming rights with 276 deals listed,
valued at more than $400 million annually. The UK ranks second in terms of total deal
value, followed by Germany, which actually has more deals, but at lower average values.
DURATIONS VARY ACCORDING TO VALUE AND MARKET MATURITY
There is a definite correlation between deal length and value and a noticeable variation in
duration according to territory. On average the more valuable deals are five years longer
and more common in the USA, Canada, the UK and Germany. In other countries, such as
Japan, it is not unusual for major deals to be as short as three years.
THE FUTURE
Although many major global rights holders have naming rights deals, there is major
potential for growth. In emerging countries such as India, Russia, China and Brazil, there
are relatively few deals at present but, in most of these countries, there has now been at
least one significant deal with signs that more will follow.
In South America and southern Europe there have been few major new stadium projects in
recent years. Over the next decade, as new stadia are built, (especially in countries such
as Brazil and Russia, which are set to host major global events) there is an opportunity for
naming rights for the new stadia. This was demonstrated in Germany following the 2006
FIFA World Cup, with the majority of new or refurbished stadia taking naming rights.
Similarly, in newly developing economies, there is likely to be an increase in the
construction of indoor arenas as investment in city infrastructure grows. Here the
opportunity to introduce naming rights should coincide with the development and maturity
of sponsorship in those countries.
7Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
As a marketing tool, there remain concerns that naming rights offer limited opportunities to
brands to go beyond basic awareness and image transfer. Buildings are static objects and
activation of the rights can be difficult in terms of both geographical marketing and
connecting with fans.
Many brands have simply added their names to stadia and left it at that in the belief that it is
not possible to really leverage the rights beyond the immediate vicinity of the stadium.
Others have merely run occasional promotional activity at the venue, but frequently there is
no on-going, strategic engagement with fans.
A more sophisticated and creative approach to activating naming rights through both social
media and experiential marketing, as successfully achieved with Munich’s Allianz Arena or
the O2 Arena in London, will be needed to justify the levels of rights fee investment in the
future.
8Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS MARKET OVERVIEW BY COUNTRY
Although there are examples of adding a corporate name to a stadium that predate the modern
era, such as the Philips Stadion in the Netherlands (1913) or Wrigley Field in Chicago (1926),
these were not principally done as part of a corporate marketing strategy.
Table 1. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by country
Country Number Total deal Average
of deals value ($m) deal value
($m)
USA 276 434.50 1.57
Germany 41 56.56 1.41
Canada 37 19.89 0.54
UK 36 71.56 1.99
Australia 26 29.70 1.14
Japan 19 33.03 1.74
Sweden 16 4.58 0.29
South Africa 13 10.64 0.82
Netherlands 10 4.79 0.48
New Zealand 8 3.84 0.48
Mexico 7 1.75 0.25
Norway 7 2.55 0.36
Switzerland 6 1.33 0.22
Finland 6 0.67 0.11
Italy 5 1.00 0.20
Ireland 4 8.19 2.05
Austria 4 1.66 0.42
France 4 5.19 1.30
Czech Republic 3 0.55 0.18
Brazil 3 17.70 5.90
Turkey 2 14.00 7.00
Estonia 2 0.50 0.25
Lithuania 2 0.28 0.14
Russia 2 7.49 3.75
Philippines 2 1.15 0.58
Equador 1 0.25 0.25
Chile 1 0.50 0.50
Slovakia 1 0.15 0.15
Spain 1 1.00 1.00
China 1 15.00 15.00
Fiji 1 0.16 0.16
Israel 1 0.30 0.30
Grand Total 548 750.45 1.37
It wasn’t until the 1990s, as the sponsorship industry developed and the cost of developing
new stadia escalated, that the USA pioneered the concept of stadium naming rights as a
sponsorship tool.
In North America fans have shown a much greater acceptance of naming rights than in
other countries, although there has been a big shift in both the UK and Germany in the past
15 years with a growth in acceptance.
9Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
Research company Performance Research, undertook a major international survey on the
subject in the late 1990s, which showed considerable resistance to naming rights in Europe
(88% of UK soccer fans reported that it would be of no benefit to them) but widespread
acceptance in the USA. Since then surveys have shown a narrowing of the gap with a
general acceptance of naming rights for new build stadia in Western Europe.
Chart 1. Naming rights deals by number of deals by country (%)
Other
20%
USA
Brazil 50%
1%
Canada
7%
Australia
5%
Japan Germany
3% UK
7%
7%
UNITED STATES
The USA remains the dominant market with exactly half of all reported deals and 58% of
naming rights fee value. One reason for this dominance is the strength of basketball and
ice hockey in the country. Unlike Europe, indoor sport commands a huge following in the
USA and this has led to numerous indoor arenas being built with high profile sports teams
as tenants. The consequent naming rights value has been significant with the Barclays
Centre in Brooklyn, for example, commanding a fee of $10 million per year from the UK-
based bank.
Chart 2. Naming rights deals by overall value of deals by country (%)
Other
12%
Canada Brazil
3% 2%
USA
Australia 58%
4%
Japan
4%
Germany
8% UK
9%
10Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
Chart 3. Naming rights deals by average value of deals by country ($m)
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
The average value of deals sees both the UK and Japan marginally higher than the USA.
Brazil’s high standing is based on a very limited number of deals and is therefore not
statistically relevant, although it does hint at the potential in the country should naming
rights become more accepted.
UNITED KINGDOM
As with Brazil, the UK’s high average needs some context. There are only two major deals
in the country: Etihad’s sponsorship of Manchester City’s stadium (a record breaking $30
million per year) and Emirates deal with Arsenal (estimated at $15 million annually). The
only other significant deal is for the multi-purpose O2 Arena (formerly the Millennium
Dome) at $7.5m per year. These three deals have pushed up the average annual value of
the country’s 36 deals to just below $2 million.
GERMANY
In Germany, on the other hand, there are a larger number of relatively high priced deals
among soccer’s Bundesliga clubs. The deals were agreed mainly in the build-up to the
2006 FIFA World Cup when the stadia were either new build or major renovations. The
likes of Bayern Munich (Allianz), Eintracht Frankfurt (Commerbank), Koln (Rheine Energie),
Hamburg (Imtech), Borussia Dortmund (Signal Iduna) and Schalke (Veltins) all have deals
worth more than $2.5 million annually.
The relative buoyancy of the German market demonstrates an acceptance of the concept,
the maturity of the sponsorship industry in the country and also the high attendance levels
among the top clubs where it is not uncommon to see gates in excess of 60,000. There are
only four other soccer teams in Europe (Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United and
Arsenal) that draw such large crowds on a regular basis.
AUSTRALIA
Both Japan and Australia have stadia attracting high value deals although their total values
are significantly below the market leaders (USA, UK and Germany). Australia has arguably
shown more market maturity given the relative size of its population. To an extent the
catalyst was the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games after which the main stadium attracted
11Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
sponsorship from telecommunications company, Telstra. The naming rights have since
been taken by banking group, ANZ ($4.5m p.a.). In 2000, Melbourne’s newest stadium also
took naming rights from the Colonial State Bank in a 10-year, $32.5 million deal. After two
years, the rights were sold on to Telstra and, on expiry in 2009, Etihad agreed a five-year,
$25 million deal.
The other major deal in the country is the Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane, also worth $5m per
year, which started in 1994. Although this could be viewed as the most mature deal in the
country, having been the first major agreement, it has recently seen a series of short-term
extensions, the latest of which is for just two years. The repeated name changes and short-
term deals for major properties suggests a degree of market immaturity.
JAPAN
Japan has an even lower average deal duration than Australia and despite the size of the
country’s economy, there are currently only two major deals, the Fukuoka Yahoo! Japan
Dome ($6m p.a.) which began in 2005, and Kyocera’s three-year, $15m deal to name the
Osaka Dome.
CANADA
Canada has followed a similar path to the USA with naming rights being commonplace,
although with ice hockey being arguably the only really strong national sport, large sized
deals have been limited. Two of the biggest deals are with telecommunications providers
for the Bell Centre ($3.2m p.a.) and Rogers Centre ($1.7m p.a.). Elsewhere in the country
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, owner of Toronto FC and the Toronto Maple Leafs,
has secured significant deals with banking group, BMO ($2.3m p.a.) and Air Canada
($1.5m p.a.) respectively.
SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa is well placed in the table in terms of both number of deals and overall spend.
The country has no club rights holders that could be considered to have global recognition,
such as Real Madrid, Dallas Cowboys, Corinthians etc. The country is also significantly
behind those previously discussed in terms of GDP. Sport is, however, very strong in the
country and at international level it has had considerable success in rugby, cricket and to a
lesser extent, soccer, which is the primary sport among the majority black population.
Given the country’s ‘western’ marketing culture and high quality stadia infrastructure,
particularly in light of the investment for staging the FIFA 2010 World Cup, naming rights
have thrived in the country, with notable deals for rugby’s Vodacom Park ($4m p.a.) and
the multi-purpose Coca-Cola park ($1.3m p.a.).
Despite this relatively high level of naming rights deals, market immaturity was
demonstrated by the fact that First National Bank had to take the City of Johannesburg to
court to ensure that its naming rights deal was fully implemented for the city’s major
stadium. The name Soccer City, used during the FIFA World Cup (no naming rights are
permitted to operate during the tournament) was still being used by the rights holder on
tickets and other official references. The case was settled in November 2012 in favour of
the bank. This suggests a basic lack of understanding of the legal and practical
requirements on behalf of the rights holder in order for naming rights to succeed.
12Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
BRIC NATIONS
Major deals have started to emerge in the so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China)
nations, but they are still very limited in number. As previously discussed, there is
widespread resistance to naming rights in Brazil with both fans and the media very
reluctant to embrace corporate naming. Soccer club Grêmio has recently signed a $16.7m
annual deal with Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) for its new 60,000 seat
stadium. The deal will be a major test for the Brazilian soccer market with the only
precedent for such a deal in Brazil being Atlético Paranaense’s Arena de Baixada, which
became the Kyocera Arena between 2005 and 2008.
In China, the only deal of any significance is the Mercedes-Benz Arena in Shanghai, worth
$150 million over ten years.
Russia has just one significant deal; Spartak Moscow’s Otkritie Bank Stadium, which runs
from 2014-19 and is worth $6.6 million per year. The FIFA World Cup in 2018, however, will
entail a significant development of stadia infrastructure in the country and should
simultaneously act as a further catalyst to the sponsorship industry in Russia following the
Sochi 2014 Winter Games, which have already attracted high levels of domestic
sponsorship. These events could lead to new naming rights deals being agreed which
would commence once the World Cup is finished.
Several factors could lead to more indoor arenas in Russia in the next decade. In sport, ice
hockey is relatively popular and there is a growing interest in the type of cultural events,
such as pop concerts, staged in arenas. With an expanding economy and middle class, the
supply of modern arenas is almost certain to grow. The potential here for a growth in
naming rights, however, will depend on how the country’s marketing industry develops in
the next few years.
In India, despite stadia infrastructure improving since the start of cricket’s very lucrative
Indian Premier League (IPL), none of the major venues has a naming rights deal. Smaller
cricket stadia in the country have taken the names of local companies in the past, but these
have generally been because the club was essentially the factory team and there were
numerous examples of grounds named after the regional railway or utilities companies.
Even these names have disappeared in recent years.
In other Indian sports sponsorship is still under-developed with, for example, many
I-League soccer teams not even having jersey deals at present. The country has, however,
witnessed several significant sponsorship deals, particularly in the IPL and with no strong
cultural opposition to the concept, there is a likelihood that naming rights will slowly be
introduced in the next decade.
SCANDINAVIA
The one other strong market for naming rights is the Scandinavian countries; Sweden,
Norway and Finland. Because of the small populations, deals are not particularly high, with
Swedbank’s ‘Friends Arena’ deal being the most notable, valued at $2.6 million per year.
The deal is significant in that the bank donated the rights to the Friends charity, which
educates and campaigns to stop bullying. It is a rare example of a sponsor using its rights
solely as a corporate social responsibility initiative.
13Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS DURATION
The duration of naming rights deals is considered to be a good indication of market
maturity. It is generally accepted that sponsorship is used as a strategic, rather than
tactical, marketing initiative and as such it is necessary to develop the programme over a
number of years for full benefits to accrue.
In naming rights, the length of the deal is particularly important because it requires both
acceptance and an actual change of behaviour among fans and the media for the
sponsorship to work. Quite simply, changing the naming of a physical property on a regular
basis invites cynicism and confusion and devalues the rights. Although any negative impact
could be argued to fall mainly on the rights holder, as it is they who have to convince
everyone to use the new name, for sponsors the benefit of a long-term deal is that they
become intrinsically associated with both the rights holder and the city.
DURATION BY COUNTRY
It is no surprise, therefore, to see long average deals in the more mature markets of the
USA, Canada and Western Europe. The data is, of course, analysed only for those deals
where the duration is disclosed (approximately 53% of deals). In countries where fewer
than five deals have reported durations, they are arguably statistically irrelevant.
Table 2. Naming rights deals by duration by country (years)
Country Number Average
of deals duration
Brazil 1 18.0
USA 195 14.4
Canada 15 11.5
Norway 2 11.0
Sweden 1 11.0
Austria 1 10.0
Ireland 1 10.0
Israel 1 10.0
South
Africa 1 10.0
China 1 9.0
New
Zealand 1 9.0
Turkey 1 9.0
Germany 23 8.6
France 3 8.0
UK 17 7.6
Australia 17 5.4
Russia 1 5.0
Ecuador 1 4.0
Philippines 1 4.0
Japan 6 3.7
Fiji 1 2.0
Total 291 12.3
14Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
Chart 4. Naming rights deals by duration by country
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Chart 4 is probably more instructive because it strips out countries with low numbers of
reported deal durations. It shows that North America in particular has embraced the
concept of long-term deals, with an average of 14.4 years in the USA and 11.5 years in
Canada. In Germany and the UK, supposedly the most mature sponsorship markets after
the USA, the deal lengths are actually below the global averages.
Some caution needs to be taken when analysing these findings as many of the smaller
deals throughout the world do not have reported durations but are likely to be short-term,
whereas small deals in Germany and the UK, with low durations, are frequently reported.
DURATION BY VALUE
Table 3, below, shows a very strong correlation between the deal value and its length.
Indeed the duration of deals worth $5 million or above is more than five years longer than
those below $2 million per year.
Table 3. The relationship between naming rights value and duration
Average
duration
Value p.a. (years)
$5m + 15.97
$2m-$4.99m 14.69
>$2m 10.8
This suggests that there is much greater maturity and commitment to naming rights among
sponsors with high levels of expenditure on prestige properties. In the USA, for example, all
of the deals above $15 million p.a. are long-term:
MetLife Stadium - 25 years
(the proposed) Farmers Field - 23 years
Barclays Center - 20 years*
Citi Field - 20 years
* Deal originally negotiated at $20m p.a. but renegotiated to approximately $10 million.
15Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
In most cases, deals worth more than $5 million in the USA follow a similar pattern. In other
countries, however, major deals are commonly under ten years in duration and in some
cases as short as three years.
UNEXPECTED NAMING RIGHTS CHANGES
One critical point to bear in mind regarding duration is that naming rights for major deals
have seen frequent name changes due to bankruptcy of the sponsor (e.g. Enron Field, now
Minute Maid Park) and corporate takeover.
Corporate takeover is much more common and what is notable here is that the consolidation
of financial services and IT industries in particular has led to a number of naming rights
changes in mid contract. To an extent, it can be argued that the new naming rights owner is
at a disadvantage for several reasons. First, any fan loyalty/brand equity accrued by the
existing brand, which is seen as an asset (perhaps even on the balance sheet) will at best be
diluted by the name change. Second, the name change in itself is of reduced value – as
discussed, the more often a stadium name changes, the less favourable the public and
media tend to be towards the new name.
Finally, the new brand owner might not consider a long-term naming rights deal to be a key
part of its marketing strategy. That said, in a world of multi-billion dollar corporate takeovers,
even a large naming rights deal is unlikely to be a major sticking point in negotiations and it is
interesting to note that following such takeovers, the selling on of naming rights has been
relatively rare.
Table 4. Change of naming rights due to corporate takeover (USA)
Original venue brand/name Venue brand/name following
corporate takeover
BankAtlantic Center BB&T Center
Qwest Field CenuryLink Field
Compaq Center HP Pavilion
SBC Park AT&T Park
Commerce Bank Park Metro Bank Park
RBC Center PNC Arena
Florida Power Park Progress Energy Park
Carolina First Arena TD Arena
America West Arena US Airways Center
Alltel Arena Verizon Arena
MCI Center Verizon Center
First American Bank Ballpark Citibank Ballpark
16Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS SPEND BY NATIONAL SOURCE
Table 5. Global sponsorship naming rights by sponsors’ origin
Sponsor Number Total Average
Hq of deals deal deal
value value
($m) ($m)
USA 271 383.79 1.42
Germany 43 72.74 1.73
Japan 27 47.43 1.76
UK 35 42.27 1.21
Abu Dhabi 2 35.00 17.50
Canada 33 26.53 0.80
Australia 24 21.16 0.88
Netherlands 10 18.56 1.86
China 2 17.90 8.95
Dubai 3 16.80 5.60
Turkey 2 14.00 7.00
Ireland 3 9.20 3.07
South
Africa 10 7.47 0.75
Other 78 34.03 0.43
Not surprisingly US companies are the biggest investors in stadium naming rights. The
domestic market in the USA is by far the largest globally. However, outside of the United
States, the big American multi-nationals have signed very few naming rights deals.
In South Africa, Coca-Cola has two deals and Chevrolet one, but elsewhere it is only in
Canada that there has been any significant activity from US companies.
Chart 5. Naming rights deals by company headquarters – number of deals
Other
20%
Australia
4% USA
50%
Canada
6%
UK
7%
Japan
5% Germany
8%
German companies such as Mercedes and Allianz in particular, have been willing to invest
in international naming rights.
17Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
Japanese multi-nationals, notably Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Bridgestone, Kyocera and Ricoh
have also invested globally although the deals are, on the whole, lower in value.
Gulf states Abu Dhabi and Dubai feature mainly because of the large deals signed by
airlines; Etihad and Emirates respectively.
Chart 6. Naming rights deals by company headquarters – total value of deals
Other
Australia 16%
3%
Canada
3% USA
51%
Abu Dhabi
5%
UK
6%
Japan
6%
Germany
10%
What is noticeable about naming rights deals on the whole is that rights appear to be taken
predominantly by domestic brands. This fits the general assumption that naming rights are
not easy to leverage globally even though many of the rights holders have global
recognition.
There is also a pattern of companies taking rights in their home city, which further explains
the findings.
18Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS MARKET OVERVIEW BY SPONSORING INDUSTRY
Table 6. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by industry sector
Industry Sector Number Total deal Average deal
of deals value ($m) value ($m)
Financial Services 155 285.43 1.84
Telecommunications 56 68.01 1.21
Airline 13 65.41 5.03
Automotive 32 47.92 1.50
Energy 34 41.49 1.22
Retail 42 40.99 0.98
Food 27 19.80 0.73
Soft drinks 15 18.29 1.22
IT 7 15.12 2.42
Alcohol 22 14.93 0.68
Logistics 4 12.30 3.07
Consumer Electronics 3 12.10 4.03
Sports Clothing 6 10.40 1.73
Other 132 98.28 0.45
FINANCIAL SERVICES
The financial services sector has long been the biggest investor in sponsorship and with
28% of all deals and 38% of total deal value, naming rights are no exception. Indeed in
most sports sponsorship sector analysis, financial services typically accounts for around
25% of value. The high level of spend in naming rights is largely a result of intense
domestic competition in the banking sector, particularly in the USA, although there are
deals from banking, insurance or credit card companies in virtually every major market. In
the USA, the likes of Farmers, Barclays, MetLife, Citi, Chase, Bank of America, TD, Sun
Life, PNC, Lincoln, M&T and Prudential, to name but a few, all have major rights.
Chart 7. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by number of deals (%)
Financial
Other Services
40% 28%
Telecommunica
-tions
10%
Airline
Retail Energy Automotive 2%
8% 6% 6%
19Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
Chart 8. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by value of deals (%)
Other
Financial
27%
Services
38%
Retail
5% Energy
6%
Telecommunica
Automotive Airline -tions
6% 9% 9%
Outside the USA major investors include Commerzbank, ANZ, Industrial and Commercial
Bank of China (ICBC), Scotiabank, Swedbank and Otkritie. These deals are mainly for
domestic properties although insurer Allianz appears to be creating a global naming rights
strategy with deals in the UK, France and Australia as well as its native Germany.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The telecommunications sector is the second strongest investor in naming rights and this is
again a global finding. As with financial services, however, the deals tend to be by domestic
sponsors. This is less surprising given the fact that most telecommunications companies
operate primarily within their domestic market. Thus in the USA, AT&T, US Cellular,
Verizon and CenturyLink all have several deals. Of the major international service
providers, Telefónica, has widest geographical spread with indoor arena rights in its home
city, Madrid, while subsidiary O2 has similar deals in the UK, Germany (two deals) and the
Czech Republic and its Brazilian offshoot, Vivo, has rights to the Minas basketball arena.
.
Chart 9. Global naming rights by sponsoring industry by average deal value
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
20Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
AIRLINES
By average value, the airline sector leads with the Etihad (Manchester City) and Emirates
(Arsenal) deals accounting for $45 million of the $65 million annual total. This has pushed the
average value for airline deals to above the $5 million mark.
In North America, the major legacy carriers such as American Airlines, Delta, United, US
Airways and Air Canada all have seven figure annual deals and, despite the unpredictable
trading conditions in the industry, most are over long periods. Airlines in North America have
used their team sponsorships to sell direct to spectators and to promote new routes. Typically,
when a new route is added, an airline will secure a secondary deal with a major right holder in
the destination city. In the case of naming rights, however, most deals are in the airlines’ hub
cities, suggesting that the rationale is partly about securing the local market but there is also an
element of showing good citizenship within its employee base.
Low cost airlines in the US, such as Southern and JetBlue, despite being major sponsors of
sport, have no naming rights deals in their portfolios.
AUTOMOTIVE
The motor industry is a big investor in naming rights in terms of both deal numbers and value.
The values vary from Mercedes’ $15 million annual deal in Shanghai, to local car dealerships in
the USA who support minor league baseball. Again, there is a large element of manufacturers
supporting their local communities with Volkswagen (Wolfsburg), Ford (Detroit), Porsche and
Mercedes-Benz (Stuttgart), Mazda (Hiroshima), Nissan (Yokohama), Toyota (Toyota City) and
General Motors (City of Oshawa – manufacturing plant) holding local naming rights.
ENERGY
The energy sector has gradually increased its investment in sponsorship over the past 15 years.
In Europe in particular, privatisation of state-owned utilities and market de-regulation, has led to
an increase in competition. As a consequence, the sector has looked to sponsorship to develop
brand awareness and image, especially for new companies entering the market.
In the USA, where the market has traditionally been very competitive, the biggest naming deal is
by Reliant Energy in Houston ($10 million p.a.), followed by FirstEnergy’s recent deal with the
Cleveland Browns at $6 million per year. There are also several $3 million plus deals from
companies such as Xcel, Chesapeake Energy and Consul.
In the German Bundesliga several energy suppliers have taken naming rights worth more than
$2 million per year. These include RheineEnergie, GEW and Wirsol.
Elsewhere, deal values have been much smaller, although it will be interesting see how the
Russian market develops given the size of its domestic energy companies and their interest in
using sponsorship to develop their brands.
RETAIL
Retail is not traditionally a particularly big investor in sponsorship, especially when compared to
the enormous sums the sector invests in advertising. The main reason for this is that marketing
budgets are spent more tactically to promote sales and special offers, so it is interesting to see
a relatively big investment in naming rights.
21Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
The biggest deals are in the USA where the Staples Centre in Los Angeles became one of
the few indoor arenas to gain international recognition. Home Depot, Target and Petco also
have major deals in the country. Outside of America, however, retail deals are much less
common and generally of fairly low value.
22Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS BY COMPANY
Table 7 shows that by company, the leading investors in naming rights are financial
services groups and airlines. Etihad’s $30 million annual deal with Manchester City has
propelled it to the top of the list, followed by Farmers’ proposed deal to name a new NFL
stadium in Los Angeles. The deal has been signed in principle, although the group will not
actually pay unless the stadium is built and a tenant is found.
Table 7. Leading corporate investors in naming rights by annual spend
Company Number Total Average
of deals deal deal
value value
($m) ($m)
Etihad Airways 2 35 17.50
Farmers 1 23 23.00
Mercedes-Benz 3 21 7.00
Citi Group 1 20 20.00
MetLife 1 18 18.00
Emirates 3 16.8 5.60
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
(ICBC) 1 16.7 16.70
Allianz 4 14.87 3.72
FedEx 2 12.1 6.05
Philips 2 11.1 5.55
O2 4 10.2 2.55
Barclays 1 10+ 10+
Reliant Energy 1 10 10.00
Türk Telekom 1 10 10.00
American Airlines 2 8.6 4.30
Toyota 4 8.45 2.11
Aviva Group Ireland Plc 1 8 8.00
University of Phoenix 1 7.72 7.72
Sun Life Financial 1 7.5 7.50
TD Bank 5 7.4 1.48
The table shows that, on the whole, the number of deals held by any one corporation is
relatively low. There are several reasons for this. First, many naming rights deals are effectively
an investment in their head office’s local community. This was noted in the previous section.
The desire to invest in local communities is generally viewed as good business and good
corporate citizenship. Benefits can be numerous and include improved internal communications,
hospitality rights for visiting buyers and improved recruitment programmes. There is also usually
a marketing benefit through brand exposure, which is most powerful at local level but in many
cases also has national impact.
MULTIPLE NAMING RIGHTS DEALS
The second issue is that having numerous naming rights deals can cause confusion,
especially if the deals are in the same country and apply to the same sport. To have, ‘Acme’
Park, ‘Acme’ Arena, ‘Acme’ Stadium, ‘Acme’ Bowl etc would be confusing to fans and also
suggests that the company is ‘promiscuous’. Where corporate objectives are to communicate
23Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
over a wide geographical area brands tend to prefer governing body rights, which cover an
entire tournament on a national, or international basis. This also explains why, on the whole,
brands don’t take jersey sponsorship rights for more than one team in a league.
Of the leading spenders with more than one naming rights deal, it is interesting to note that
there is generally very little potential for confusion. Allianz, for example, has soccer deals in
Germany and France, a Rugby Union deal in the UK and a Rugby League/Soccer deal in
Australia. There is very little danger of confusion here and the company can use its experience
1
of activation, particularly the innovative programme built around the Allianz Arena in Munich ,
across the different territories.
NAMING RIGHTS OBJECTIVES
In those cases where major investors have bought rights away from their domestic base, there
is a clear pattern of brands wishing to promote themselves in new markets. Both Emirates and
Etihad, for example, represent airlines that are seeking to establish themselves as global
players. Although Emirates is further advanced in its brand development, both come from a low
base level in terms of global recognition and brand acceptance.
Mercedes, despite being one of the world’s leading global brands, has invested heavily in its
naming rights deal in China, a major new market where there is growing potential for luxury
vehicles. Similarly, the UK bank Barclays does not have high levels of recognition in the USA
and taking major rights in New York, the dominant financial centre in the USA, is designed to
improve awareness and image as well as offer a hospitality base in the city.
It is therefore clear that corporate naming rights objectives tend to be much narrower than for
other forms of sponsorship. Rights holders seeking major deals should therefore focus on either
locally-based companies or those looking to enter (or significantly develop) the market in their
region.
1
Sponsorship Activation & Case Studies, IMR Publications, 2009
24Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
NAMING RIGHTS MARKET OVERVIEW BY SPORT
The biggest sector for naming rights by both value and number of deals is for multi-purpose
venues. In the data analysis, it has been difficult to separate basketball and ice hockey
arenas from the multi-purpose indoor venues that often host these sports. The data has,
therefore, been compiled to list basketball and ice hockey arenas, both separately and
jointly, where the arena has clearly been built primarily for tenants of the sport(s).
Multi-purpose also applies to outdoor stadia where more than one sport is played, such as
soccer/rugby, Aussie Rules/soccer etc.
Table 8. Global sponsorship naming rights analysis by sport
Sport Number Total Average
of deals deal deal
value value
($m) ($m)
Multi-purpose 200 219.04 1.10
Soccer 96 169.30 1.76
American Football 34 150.02 4.41
Baseball 104 100.76 0.97
Basketball 15 33.81 2.25
Rugby Union 10 14.24 1.42
Ice Hockey 27 11.01 0.41
Motorsport 5 9.40 1.88
Basketball / Ice
Hockey 2 8.30 4.15
Cricket 11 7.07 0.64
Aussie Rules 9 4.15 0.46
Other 35 23.36 0.66
Chart 10. Global naming rights by sport by number of deals (%)
Other
16%
Rugby Union Multi-purpose
2% 36%
Basketball
3%
Baseball
19%
American Soccer
Football 18%
6%
25Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
On the whole, multi-purpose arenas tend to host smaller stature rights holders. The major
American Football, soccer and baseball teams are usually either single, or certainly primary,
occupants of their stadia. For basketball or ice hockey venues, major teams such as the LA
Lakers (Staples Center) or the New York Nets (Barclays Center) are the primary occupants
despite a wide range of other events being held at the venues. The value of naming rights for
multi-purpose arenas, therefore, is usually more dependent on the profile of the tenants than the
size of the arena. That said, large multi-purpose venues in high-profile cities, such as London’s
O2 arena (which doesn’t have a prestigious tenant) can still command large naming rights
deals. O2, in conjunction with venue operator AEG, has developed a sophisticated activation
programme for the arena, which includes priority ticket booking and exclusive hospitality areas
for customers. This has also increased the value of its rights.
Chart 11. Global naming rights by sport by value of deals (%)
Other
Rugby Union 8%
2%
Multi-purpose
29%
Basketball
5%
Baseball
13%
American Soccer
Football 23%
20%
Chart 12. Global naming rights by sport by average value of deals ($m)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
26Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
AMERICAN FOOTBALL
In terms of average value, dedicated American Football and US basketball venues lead. In
American Football major deals include the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey (worth $18
million per year) and the proposed Farmers Field in Los Angeles which, should it go ahead,
would be worth $700 million over 30 years.
There are also a number of annual $5 million plus deals such as:
Reliant Stadium ($10m)
University of Phoenix Stadium ($7.7m)
Bank of America Stadium and Gillette Stadium ($7m)
Lincoln Financial Field and Lucas Oil Stadium ($6.7m)
Sports Authority Field ($6m)
Mercedes-Benz Superdome ($5m)
Several big teams, such as the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers have not sold their
naming rights and these would certainly fetch premium prices should they decide to do so.
Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, declared that its new stadium should be called
Cowboys Stadium, at least over the short-term. The huge stadium was opened in 2009, at
the height of the financial crisis, making a lucrative deal more difficult, although not
impossible.
The Green Bay Packers’ Lambeau Field is, in theory at least, a candidate for a deal. The
stadium owner, Brown County, even ran a local referendum to ask if the rights should be
sold, which was backed by 53% to 47% against. The City and team agreed to sell the rights
if a price of $100 million could be realised, although no buyer has been found to date.
The Packers, although agreeing to be bound by the will of the voters, have consistently
stressed that they would prefer Lambeau Field keep its traditional name, honouring the
club's founder.
BASKETBALL
In the USA, the going rate for naming rights of multi-purpose venues with high profile
tenants was in the region of $4-7 million per year until the recently signed Barclays Center
deal, which was originally reported at $20 million per year but, apparently, renegotiated to
around $10 million.
The Home Depot Center, American Airlines Center, Staples Center, Prudential Center,
PNC Arena, TD Garden, Toyota Center, FedEx Forum, to name but a few, all come into the
$4-7 million price bracket.
The one exception is the Philips Arena in Atlanta, for which the Dutch giant signed a 20-
year deal for $185 million ($9.25m p.a.) back in 1999. That deal now looks quite expensive,
and there were rumours as early as 2003 that Philips was looking to find a way to cut the
cost.
The reasons for the high value of the Barclays deal are the size and iconic nature of the
new venue, the fact that it is in New York (which adds to the value for a financial services
company) and the number of high-profile non-sporting events likely to take place. It is also
in the heartland of the US marketing community, thus adding to the likelihood of increased
profile within the sponsorship community and the consequent value of the rights.
27Naming Rights
December 1, 2012
SOCCER
Naming rights in soccer vary enormously depending on the stature of the club. In the UK,
for example, Manchester City (Etihad) and Arsenal (Emirates) have secured deals worth a
combined annual fee of $45 million. The only other clubs in the English Premiership with
naming deals are Stoke City and Swansea City, whose combined annual fees total $2.25
million. This demonstrates the value of having large, iconic stadia and global fan appeal.
In Germany, as previously discussed, there is less disparity in rights values with numerous
clubs in the Bundesliga achieving between $2 million and $8 million per year.
In the USA, Major League Soccer clubs Colorado Rapids (Dick’s Sporting Goods) and Real
Salt Lake (Rio Tinto) have both managed to achieve deals above the $1.5 million mark,
demonstrating the growing popularity of the league.
In Latin countries naming rights deals in soccer are much rarer, with the exception of
Mexico, which is arguably more influenced by the marketing culture of the USA than such
territories as Spain, Italy and Brazil.
No major club in Spain or Italy has yet sold naming rights, although there are rumours that
Real Madrid’s Bernabeu Stadium could be renamed with Emirates mentioned as most likely
candidate. The airline has a relatively low sponsorship presence in the country and is
currently a secondary sponsor of Real Madrid and has also recently signed a five-year
sponsorship deal for rights to the Barcelona Open tennis tournament.
France is a relatively untapped market with only one current soccer deal following Allianz
taking rights to the recently opened Riviera stadium in Nice.
Again there are rumours concerning a major Gulf state investor. Qatari-owned Paris Saint-
Germain (PSG) is believed to be on the verge of a huge sponsorship deal with a Qatar-
based organisation. With PSG’s jersey sponsorship already taken by Emirates, it is difficult
to see how a new deal would not include naming rights to the Parc des Princes stadium.
Given that UEFA has introduced Financial Fair Play rules which dictate that high spending
clubs, such as PSG, cannot simply be bankrolled by billionaires, any sponsorship would
have to be justified as reflecting market value. It is, therefore, likely that naming rights
would be part of any new deal given that there are few other high value rights available.
BASEBALL
Baseball has been particularly successful in selling naming rights in the USA. The majority
of Major and Minor League clubs have sold rights to their stadia and deals vary from the
$20 million annual deal with Citi bank and the New York Mets to small local ballpark deals
worth less than $100k.
Aside from the Mets deal, however, there are no others worth more than the $6 million p.a.
fee for Minute Maid Park in Houston and only five above $2 million per year. That said, the
biggest teams such as the New York Yankees, Los Angeles Dodgers, Boston Red Sox and
Chicago Cubs have no naming rights deals.
The Yankee Stadium, for example, which opened in 2009, reportedly had offers of $50
million per year turned down with the club declaring that their heritage is too valuable to risk
28You can also read
