NY Mets and Citi Field Naming Rights Hubbub

I do not understand the short sightedness of these politicians that say Citigroup and the New York Mets must dissolve their 20 year, $400M naming rights agreement or Citigroup should have to return the $45B Citi received from the TARP money.

To arbitrarily say that they should cancel the agreement is preposterous. First, find out if any of the taxpayer money is going to the Mets. Any company, regardless if they received gov’t help, has a right, a necessity, to advertise. Having its name on a stadium in the largest market in the country gives them a great deal of exposure. Especially in the first year of the new stadium. It will be all over TV. Its signs are all over the stadium. And I guarantee that with the agreement, Citibank is now the official bank of the New York Mets, and they have exclusive rights to install ATM’s within the stadium. (Why would they NOT put that into the contract).

Having the agreement dissolved would, in my opinion, make Citigroup look even worse off. It shows that they can’t even advertise nor have the money to spend on advertising. The Gov’t is not telling them to stop other advertising, so why should the Gov’t pick and choose which advertising strategies to kill. Historically, banks have been one of the few industries where naming rights make sense. Banks are pretty much all the same. Naming rights help differentiate banks. Giving them the TARP money and saying that they can’t market themselves does not make sense.

Also, the agreement is a legally binding contract. The Mets and Citigroup signed the contract in 2006. If it was voided, there is no way, in this market, that the Mets can find another partner who would pay close to the same amount. So, besides punishing Citi for there past deeds, you in turn punish the New York Mets. If Citi is forced to break the contract, or looks to get out of it by itself, the Mets are sure to sue for damages. Say, in the current economy, the Mets can only negotiate a $250M, 20 yr agreement with another partner, they would probably sue for the other $150M in damages. Now what would make sense, Citi paying $400M for naming rights and advertising for 20 years, or $150M for nothing.

And why is the conversation only about Citigroup and the New York Mets. If Citi is forced out of the contract by the Gov’t, they HAVE to also force any company that receives Gov’t bailout money out of their naming agreements: Bank of America recived $45B and has their name on teh Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC, and are negotiating a major sponsorship rights agreemnet with the NY Yankees (though not for the name of the stadium): JP Morgan Chase, recipiant of $25B has Chase Field in Phoenix, AZ; Wells Fargo also received $25B and has various arena's named for them around the west coast, as well as The Wachovia Center in Philadelphia, arising from its purchase of Wachovia. They are sure to change the name to Wells Fargo Center, or something similar.



On a lighter note, if the Mets do lose the sponsorship and name of Citified (which is a perfect name, doesn’t sound commercial for NYC), another PERFECT sponsorship would be with Met Life, for Met Life Park.

And for the new stadium being built for the NY Jets and the NY Giants, a perfect sponsorship would be with JetBlue. Makes total sense (for those who don’t know: fits for the Jets and Big Blue)