The Deal
Sunday, November 8, 
4:05 pm

Congressmen fight for Citi Field

  Share     E-Mail    Discussion    Print Story

Citiandshea_3-29-08_036.jpgEvidently Dealscape is not alone in thinking Citigroup Inc.'s marketing agreement with the New York Mets is reasonable. Six members of New York's delegation in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., agree.

Engel drafted a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, arguing against an earlier letter from Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas. Kucinich and Poe had demanded that Treasury force Citigroup to break its $400 million, 20-year marketing contract that not only gives Citigroup naming rights to the ballpark, but exclusive advertising throughout the stadium.

Among other things, Engel believes there are First Amendment issues at stake in meddling with the Citi Field deal.


Continue reading below

Also on Dealscape

Engel wrote:

Interfering in a binding contract signed by two willing parties is a slippery slope towards sanctioned advertising which I believe is a dangerous precedent to be setting. This would unfairly single out a specific company and a particular form of advertising for purely a political reason. It would have a negative effect on free speech in advertising which could cross over into television, radio, cable and newspapers.

The other representatives who signed the letter include fellow Democrats Joseph Crowley, Steve Israel, Yvette Clarke, Gregory Meeks and Anthony Weiner.

Other interesting details that Engel uses to support his point is the real cost of the deal. Engel points out that Citigroup's $20 million a year payment to the Mets is less than 1% of its advertising budget. We had noted that Citigroup is only spending $250,000 a Mets game, when peer Bank of America Corp. is spending almost $1 million a game for the advertising rights to Carolina Panthers football games.

A few weeks back, Dealscape argued that Kucinich and Poe were basically demanding  Citigroup should stop spending on advertising:

The truth is these deals are simply about advertising, but politicians looking to score points with their constituents are turning these agreements into cases of corporate vanity and greed. While many restrictions were put on the car companies -- like demands for the end of corporate jets -- when receiving their government bailout, no one ordered them to stop advertising -- including the removal of their stadium naming rights. Similarly, airlines, which plaster their name on stadiums as frequently as banks, were never told to stop when they received a post-9/11 bailout. So do we really expect the banks to stop advertising?


While the tit-for-tat arguments make for some entertaining journalism for the sports press, business media and political pundits -- not to mention late-night comedians -- the truth is Geithner has bigger issues to focus his energy on, as illustrated by the response to Tuesday's speech unveiling the Obama administration's bank bailout. - Matthew Wurtzel

See Engel's letter
See earlier post from Dealscape





Post a comment





The Deal Pipeline

Deal Video


Inside The Deal: Linklaters' Schmidt says how regulators handled Pfizer Inc.'s acquisition of Wyeth is an outlier of how others merger reviews will be conducted.


More video...

Crisis On Wall Street
Technology
Deals of The Decade

Community

Industry Insight

Dealing with frozen bank lending

If your bank is not willing to lend, what can you do as your company continues to seek growth?


Judgment Call

The coming age of the renminbi

The Chinese currency will play an increasingly important role in international commerce and finance.


Industry Insight

Banking on PE investments

Howls of protest greeted the FDIC policy statement, but the financial services industry should get over it.


footspacer.jpg footspacer.jpg footspacer.jpg footspacer.jpg footspacer.jpg


©Copyright 2009, The Deal, LLC. All rights reserved. Please send all technical questions, comments or concerns to the Webmaster.