It’s not uncommon for football teams to sell the naming rights to stadiums, and Aston Villa stands to gain a significant sum of money should they decide to rename Villa Park.
New stadiums like the AMEX Stadium, King Power Stadium, Emirates Stadium, and Etihad Stadium typically come with naming rights. It would be interesting to see what percentage of Villa supporters would be in favour of or against renaming Villa Park if it improved the club’s financial situation, given that they are currently being held back by Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). It is much easier to name a stadium without any historical significance.
When Newcastle United was still owned by Mike Ashley in 2009, its home field was renamed sportsdirect.com@St James’ Park. The stadium was renamed the Sports Direct Arena in 2011, however this decision was met with strong opposition. In fact, Wonga.com chose to return to calling the stadium St. James’ Park when they purchased the naming rights in 2012 along with the jersey sponsorship.
READ | Aston Villa to take advantage of Champions League boost following £165 million in transfers
READ | Unai Emery faces ‘headache’ at Aston Villa with £62 million transfer expenditure
When they gave streaming behemoth Spotify the naming rights to the Nou Camp in Spain, Barcelona was prepared to face backlash. If Barcelona hadn’t had such a restricted amount of fan data—something Spotify focused a lot of attention on—the agreement may have been worth more.
Tottenham considered selling the name rights to their £1.2 billion, state-of-the-art construction. Links to prospective sponsors like Google were made public, but Spurs chairman Daniel Levy is known for negotiating well, so the team is reportedly adamant about what they think a sponsorship space is worth.
Levy has also previously discussed the possible benefits of retaining the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium moniker rather than giving stadium naming rights to a company. This might have an influence in developing markets, particularly as the stadium hosts NFL regular season games every year.
However, a stadium’s naming rights can fetch a very high price. In North American sports, stadiums have been able to sell businesses name rights for more than a decade for as much as £500 million.
In 2019, the financial company SoFi signed a massive 20-year, $600 million contract to name the Los Angeles Rams’ and Los Angeles Chargers’ home stadiums. The Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Kings’ home arena, formerly known as the Staples Centre, had its naming rights taken over by Crypto.com in 2021 for a sum of $700 million. The Los Angeles Clippers have already sold the rights to Intuit for $500 million, and the team plans to erect a brand-new, purpose-built arena in Inglewood in 2024.
“It’s a completely different mark in the US, and I think one of the big mistakes that a lot of European clubs or sports entities make is actually trying to draw a comparison on the value of a stadium naming rights deal in the US and trying to translate that into what that could mean in Europe,” said Daniel Haddad, head of commercial strategy at global sports agency Octagon, in an interview with the Bottom Line earlier this year.
“Basically, the main distinction is that, in the US, sports teams are not required to disclose or have other prominent points of entry when it comes to the traditional methods of selling their assets. In the US, the market is nearly making an effort to cater to people who wear jersey patches and other accessories. However, in terms of visibility and brand awareness, stadium naming rights have historically been the best asset in the US.
In the US, field signage is not as prevalent. When it comes to stadium branding, an NFL game is generally a clean place to view. The real playing field is much cleaner, but the business model is obviously different there and there are a lot more companies embedded in the broadcast spotlight, such as in sponsored portions on CBS or ESPN.
Although there are several exceptions, most stadium naming rights are acquired by a sizable company based in that state (Crypto.com is one of them). Accordingly, the firm would typically be a US company with its headquarters in that state if you look at the majority of stadium naming rights agreements in the US.
These states have enormous economies. The economy of California is larger than that of the UK, and there are numerous enterprises in every state. Businesses with billion-dollar annual revenue are the signatories, as they can afford to spend that on marketing. It’s a different market as a result. Another factor to think about is that, if a stadium isn’t a multipurpose, year-round venue, it’s always difficult to sell naming rights to an event outside of the United States.
When it comes to football stadiums in the UK, for example, like the Co-Op Arena in Manchester, which was sold before it was built, the branding is controlled by UEFA sponsors and there aren’t many home games where the brand is visible. Instead, the Champions League is one of the competitions where there is minimal mention of the stadium’s naming partner.
This summer, Douglas Luiz was the high-profile casualty as Villa were forced to generate money through player sales. In order for Villa to continue complying with the Premier League’s financial regulations, he moved in a £42 million trade to Juventus.
The goal of the club is to increase revenue to £400 million by 2027 so that they can compete with the ‘big six’ in the business world. To give Unai Emery the best chance of keeping Villa competitive against the top teams on the football, it is imperative that the club diversify its sources of income.
Do you believe Villa Park should be given a new name? Tell us right here.
To stay up to date with the newest transfer headlines and news, click this link to join our Aston Villa WhatsApp Community.
There are affiliate links in this post; if you use them to make a purchase, we will get paid. Find out more
Prime by Amazon Register
Obtain a complimentary membership to Amazon Prime.
Leave a Reply