The New York Times shed some ink on beleaguered Citigroup Inc.'s naming of the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field, and the $20 million a year it will pay over 20 years to adorn its name on the Queens, N.Y., venue. But why only question the Citi deal?
Continue reading below
In addition to Citi, there are a number of other banks whose names adorn stadiums and arenas, and some (Bank of America Corp., Wachovia Corp. and KeyCorp) are in equally -- if not more -- precarious circumstances than Citi. In addition to troubled banks, there are also other distressed businesses that have names on sports venues including Ford Motor Co. and various airlines. Naming rights have long had a kind of curse to them. And it's been said before but worth repeating: It might benefit employees and customers if the money spent for vanity rights were spent elsewhere -- in the case of Citi, the Times suggested avoiding some layoffs that Dealscape pegs at about 13,000.
Aside from the fact that Citi Field is in the Times' backyard, perhaps the short shrift to the aforementioned troubled companies could be the price. At face value, Citi appears to be paying a princely sum that exceeds everyone else. But that's at face value. In fact, Bank of America is paying more for the rights to place its name on the Carolina Panthers' home. The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank reportedly pays $7 million a year for naming rights for the NFL-affiliated stadium, and when you consider the per game price, Bank of America is paying almost 4 times what Citi is paying thanks to the NFL's regular season 16 games compared to MLB's 162 games. Sure, if you factor in some of the concerts that Bank of America Field may host, that Citi Field is unlikely to match, the price comes down a bit, but at the end of the day, Bank of America is paying more. So where are the questions about BofA's wisdom? - Matthew Wurtzel
