Corporate Classics

This morning the New York Post reported that MetLife has secured the naming rights to New Meadowlands Stadium for up to $20 million per year for 20 years, and will rename the facility Metlife Stadium (clever, I know).  The completely unsurprising move (the stadium has been looking for a naming rights sponsor since it opened over a year ago) got me thinking about stadiums with corporate naming rights, and more specifically this: Can a stadium become a "classic" if it has a company's name and logo bolted onto its facade?*  Will a list of baseball's all-time classic parks ever read Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T and PNC?

As I see it, there are two main reasons that a corporate naming rights partner weakens the chances of a stadium ever becoming a classic.  The first is that these stadiums are likely to change names over the lives of the building as a) the naming rights deals expire and new companies step in or b) companies change names and / or logos.  Parks like Wrigley and Fenway are great because fans aged eight to eighty all know it by the same name; The Red Sox have played in Fenway Park since the venue opened in 1912.  While San Francisco's AT&T Park has only been around since 2000, it's already had three names: Pacific Bell Park (commonly referred to as Pac Bell) from 2000 to 2003, SBC Park from 2003 to 2006 (after SBC acquired Pacific Bell), and AT&T Park since 2006 (when SBC and AT&T merged).  When I went to my first Giants game this spring, I almost called the place Pac Bell Park ten different times, evern though a huge AT&T logo was staring at me from centerfield.

Second, a corporate name removes an element of history from the stadium.  Cubs fans know that their park was named Wrigley Field in 1926 after owner and chewing gum magnate William Wrigley, Jr.  Red Sox Nation knows that Fenway Park was named after the Fenway neighborhood of Boston and the marshland, or "fens," that was filled in to build up the surrounding area.  But what can Pirates fans, for example, say about the origins of PNC Park?  Only that Pittsburgh-based bank PNC purchased the naming rights to their beautiful ballpark for $1.5 million per season, effective when the park opened in 2001.

  As nice as any stadium in baseball, can a place called "PNC Park" be considered a true classic?

Having worked on the business side of sports for years, I understand as well as anyone the modern need to sell stadium naming rights and use the revenue to improve the state of the team both on and off the field.  That being said, it will be interesting to see how modern masterpieces like AT&T and PNC compare to the likes of Fenway and Wrigley in the minds of baseball historians.  As facilities go, there is no doubt in my mind that San Francisco and Pittsburgh are homes to two of the finest ballparks America has ever seen; we'll have to wait and see if I still feel the same way when they're better known as "Google Field" and "84 Lumber Stadium," respectively, in 2025.

*NOTE: Don't misunderstand me here.  I'm not saying I think the New Meadowlands is poised to become a classic football stadium with or without a corporate naming rights partner.  MetLife Stadium (for $20 million a year we better start calling it that now) is a perfectly acceptable, generic field, but it was never going to be held in high esteem by sports historians or architecture buffs.