The secret to successful naming-rights deals

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

The secret to successful naming-rights deals

Old Trafford might still be Old Trafford for now, but from July 1 Manchester United’s training ground will be renamed the Aon Training Complex as part of an eight-year sponsorship deal worth £120 million ($185 million)

At the moment Aon insurance company is the main sponsor of the football club’s kit, but is set to be replaced by Chevrolet from the start of the 2014 season. The new deal will see its trade mark emblazed instead on training kit worn by Manchester united players and coaching staff at all domestic matches and during training sessions.

The promotional value of having the team wear branded kit during training sessions at the soon-to-be Aon Training Complex is uncertain, however. The training ground, currently known as the Trafford Training Centre (or simply “Carrington”, where it is located in Manchester) is surrounded by fences and trees to ensure media and opponents cannot spy on the team’s training tactics. But players are likely to appear in Aon kit during interviews for the club’s own TV station filmed at the training ground.

How to do the deal

Managing IP has published a number of articles highlighting the opportunities and risks posed by naming rights deals.

In Fields of opportunities, Robin Lightner Maisashvili and Nina Smith explained the problems of paying to name an existing stadium where fans have a sentimental attachment to the existing name. Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, for example, is still referred to as Mile High by many fans and some commentators. In cases like this, clubs can structure deals that see sponsors take naming rights to sections of the ground. Fenway Park in Boston, for example, has the Crown Royal Club and the Volvo Hall of Fame Club.

The opportunities for sponsorship are also expanding, say the authors, with the limits set only by the creativity of marketing departments. Deals might allow for lighted roof signs for nighttime viewing by aeroplane passengers; uniforms of ushers, food service and other vendors; cups, plates, and napkins; and team stationery.

In Look before you leap into naming rights agreements, James Weinberger warns would-be sponsors that many sports clubs want to tie their partners into long deals given the cost and disruption of renaming grounds. Rather than trying to negotiate this down, sponsors should consider whether they want to be committed for a long period of time, given that the “potential risks and benefits associated with such a deal are going to be amplified as a result”.

While it might not be such a worry for Aon, Weinberg recalls sponsors who have named grounds of clubs that have failed to deliver big (or indeed any) wins. At the time of writing, for example, the PNC Bank-sponsored Pittsburgh Pirates were in the midst of their seventeenth consecutive losing season and has not made the baseball playoffs in all of that time.

“No matter how attractive the stadium, and no matter how pleasant a fan's experience there might otherwise be, the losing perception may be leaking from the baseball team to the stadium itself. In that case the brand owner is probably going to experience negative perception that it might not have anticipated,” says Weinberger.

The Fross Zelnick lawyer outlines the benefits and drawbacks of structuring deals with licences, consent agreements or broader sponsorship deals. He highlights challenges for lawyers using licensing deals including considering the cost implications and ensuring that the brand owner is able to exercise a certain degree of quality assurance over the way the trade mark is used.

Finally, he retells the cautionary tale of the Houston Astros baseball team, which signed a 30-year naming rights deal with a local company in 1999 worth more than $100 million. Unfortunately for the Astros, the company was Enron.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Kelly Thompson, chair of South African firm Adams & Adams, discusses self-belief, self-doubt, and the importance of saying yes
The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Gift this article