The answer, upon closer inspection, may be no. Club owners get a short-term infusion of revenue that allows them to satisfy potential lenders, but the history of these deals indicates they don’t run to their contractual term — mergers, tight markets and bankruptcies can be blamed — and clubs often are stuck trying to find a second naming-rights buyer for an existing facility for pennies on the dollar.  

While the existing research is mixed on whether buying naming rights is a defensible corporate decision from an advertising or branding standpoint, one clear conclusion that can be drawn: The fees paid to rebrand an existing facility are significantly less than those paid for a new one. Would you recommend to your CEO picking up the Enron contract for the Astros’ field at full price and expect to remain on the payroll?

Also with naming-rights deals proliferating at their current rate, before this decade is out every sports facility in the world, the good ones and the bad ones, will all be named for some company, most probably a bank. Naming rights will be so overused as to be rendered virtually useless as a branding opportunity. Communities that have paid the bill for these facilities will be left with little to distinguish their investment. They also will be faced with the prospect of having to make up for the revenue lost if the original naming-rights purchaser goes belly up. What follows a market when participants overpay without the possibility of making a fair return on their investment is usually a crash, and the naming-rights market may well be ripe for one.

However, there may be an opportunity to shift the paradigm in a favorable direction for fan, consumer and naming-rights purchaser and that is through a new kind of partnership. Not a partnership with a team but with individuals whose values transcend the game.

The company that sponsors a Jackie Robinson Stadium, or Pat Tillman Field or a Tom Landry Bowl, or the existing Arthur Ashe Stadium and USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center gets something far more valuable than the advertising opportunity. They get the chance to connect their brand with the values of the person for whom the stadium is named. In an era of corporate scandals, what company wouldn’t benefit from connecting with the timeless values of a beloved icon. Moreover, in an era of player scandals and the always possible extended losing streak, what corporation wouldn’t rather connect in a tangible way with the values of a Roberto Clemente than with those of the present-day Pittsburgh Pirates, to pick but one example. Also, what company wouldn’t seek to be included in the legacy of a Clemente or a Robinson even if they weren’t the original presenting sponsor. So while this partnership may be slightly less valuable for the team at the outset, the relationship may have a better chance of holding its value in the long term.

This relationship, while requiring a higher level of activation, in the form of a rights transfer with the company acquiring a limited license to use the name and image of the person for whom the stadium is named for its purposes, also presents real synergies potentially serving to bring out the better angels of the buyers’ corporate nature and of the fans’ and the present-day sports teams’ characters. 

In the absence of any reliable metric defining return on investment for the buyer of stadium naming rights, it is worth trying to connect with the timeless heroes of sports and society. It may just make it possible for companies, teams and stadiums to stand out, in what is quickly becoming a very overcrowded field.