Why Lambeau Field Won't Sell Their Naming Rights

Iconic institutions like Mile High Stadium now have corporate sponsors like Empower glued on to them. Acrisure? Lumen Field? TIAA Bank Field? Lambeau Field will never sell out for a corporate name - here's why.

Ever heard of Acrisure?

How do you even pronounce Acrisure?

Either way, the Pittsburgh Steelers, who, along with the Packers and Bears, are one of the most historically iconic franchises in the NFL, will be playing at Acrisure Stadium for the next decade and a half after the digital insurance company signed a naming rights deal last week.

When the Steelers built their stadium in 2001, the naming rights were sold to Heinz in a $57M deal for 20 years. That's not $57M per year, that's for all 20 years. In hindsight, it's a pittance. Things have blown up since then and will probably continue to escalate (the Acrisure deal cold be worth up to $30M per year), but that doesn't mean the Packers are ready to cash in.

Why not?

Well, let's look at the broad landscape of NFL revenue so we can understand the context and implications of stadium naming rights.

Most of the revenue that teams earn goes into a shared pool. This includes the TV deals (which are the largest source of league revenue), licensing, merchandise, and 40% of gross ticket sales. All of this income gets lumped together and doled out to teams in 32 equal amounts. This profit-sharing model is why Buffalo and Green Bay can support NFL franchises.

However, individual teams get to keep their local revenue, which includes 60% of gross ticket sales, concessions, and local team sponsorships.

Any stadium naming rights income falls under the local team sponsorships categories. That means it goes into the team coffers for whatever use the team has.

For 31 of the 32 NFL teams, that money pretty much goes straight to the owner.

This is why stadium naming rights are so popular: greed.

The Packers, famously, don't have a single owner that would get to pocket this amount, so it never becomes an important topic.

But does this leave the Packers financially lagging compared to other teams?

It could, especially when it comes to the salary cap.

If you take the gross sum of all the money made by NFL teams (shared or not), multiply it by 0.48, and divide it by 32, you have the annual salary cap (for more background on why the reasons for this, the mechanics behind enforcing it, and the federal antitrust implications, check out my book: A Fan's Guide To Understanding The NFL Salary Cap).

This means the salary cap is a little less than half of all the money made by the teams, which includes money that teams don't have to share, like concessions and local sponsorships (including stadium naming rights).

The Packers have revamped their concessions over the years (and I'm sure beer sales at Lambeau do just fine), but could stadium naming rights money put them at a disadvantage? What happens if everyone else makes more local money than the Packers, driving up the salary cap, while the Packers miss out on the stadium naming deal money to keep up?

Can they keep up with expenses without selling the naming rights to Lambeau Field?

Well, the Packers have some unique advantages as the league's smallest market.

For one, the Packers have the Titletown District. All revenue from this development goes to the Packers to help close the income gap that other teams create by selling their stadium name. Laugh all you want at the sledding hill, but the Titletown development was a critical move for the Packers to keep up in the revenue game and maintain their historic legacy, including the name Lambeau Field.

Well, can't other teams do the same thing?

No, actually.

Pull up Google maps and check out the stadiums in places like Chicago, Seattle, Indianapolis, Atlanta, New Orleans, San Francisco, or pretty much any other NFL city and you'll see they're all in heavily-congested metropolitan areas. They're boxed in. They can't expand to create something as unique (and lucarative) as the Packers Titletown district.

Their unique history also makes things like the Packers Hall of Fame a year-round tourist destination. It ain't Disneyland, but I'll guarantee you the Texans Hall of Fame does not draw the same numbers.

Throw in gate-naming sponsorships on top of it all, and the Packers are in a great position to keep up financially.

Every year at the shareholder's meeting, the Packers disclose their finances. 

Every year, they're in good shape.

How do they compare to other teams?

It doesn't matter.

They don't need to keep up with other teams. They just need to remain financially stable and solvent so they can compete.

Making more than other teams is an ego-boost for guys like Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Shahid Khan.

The Packers don't need to play that game.

They don't need to sell stadium naming rights.

They get to remain the unique, historic flagship franchise they've always been.

Let everyone else play at Arcisure Stadium and whatever new dot com wants to throw money at their owner. 

The Packers will remain at historic Lambeau Field.  

They will not sell out.

 

Bruce Irons has played, coached, and studied football for decades. Best-selling author of books such as A Fan's Guide To Understanding The NFL Draft, A Fan's Guide To Understanding The NFL Salary Cap, and A Fan's Guide To NFL Free Agency Hits And Misses, Bruce contributes to CheeseHeadTV and PackersForTheWin.com.

Follow Bruce Irons on Twitter at @BruceIronsNFL.

 

NFL Categories: 
7 points

Comments (54)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
HawkPacker's picture

July 17, 2022 at 07:43 am

Question: If the packers would sell the naming rights of Lambeau, wouldn't the city keep this money and use it for city obligations such as reduce property taxes, reduce or eliminate any user fees, pay down/off GO Bonds? Seems like there could be many useful ideas for the additional funding since they are city owned.

I do admit, I do not know the exact ownership structure or possible limitations but this does come to mind when reading this article as it is not expressed.

0 points
1
1
BruceIrons's picture

July 17, 2022 at 08:08 am

The Packers have a unique relationship with the city of Green Bay.

If the naming rights to Lambeau Field were to be sold, the Packers and the City of Green Bay would both have to agree to the deal and they would share in the profits.

This is another reason why the Packers wouldn't sell the rights - they would only get half the profits.

4 points
4
0
HawkPacker's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:20 am

You got two thumbs up Bruce but I am still not satisfied with the answer. So the City gets half the profits? Seems fair to me. I would think a lot of shareholders are local and I am not opposed to the City receiving half for the aforementioned reasons.

The Packers receiving half seems pretty good to me especially when you look at the $ amount!

-2 points
0
2
dobber's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:58 am

The Packers drive the economy of GB and the Fox Valley. Without the Packers, GB is a low-end, blue-collar port city. With the Packers, GB is a destination with a thriving tourist sector and drawing big $$ from July through January, especially in the restaurant and hospitality sectors.

2 points
4
2
Leatherhead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 10:31 am

Theoretically.,,, because I know it will never happen, couldn’t the Packers and the city spend that money on things that would benefit thepeople who live there?

I mean, that’s a lot of money. Food, medicine, schools, law enforcement, ….you could do a lot of good with that money.

Or, you could just signal your virtue and keep the money.

-2 points
1
3
BruceIrons's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:38 am

Theoretically, yes, every NFL team could donate the entirety of their profits to causes involving food, medicine, schools, or law enforcement.

Every NFL team could also theoretically fully fund their own stadium and not take any tax dollars.

This also applies to MLB, NBA, and NHL.

None of them do.

1 points
1
0
Since'61's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:00 pm

That is because every other team has a private owner(s). The Packers are a public owed team.
Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:46 pm

And since it is, why don’t the team and city do this? It’s free money and it could be used to help people instead of an owner.

0 points
1
1
Since'61's picture

July 17, 2022 at 01:08 pm

Leatherhead see my post below for a few of the reasons why the Packers should not sell Lambeau' naming rights.

For example, suppose the rights were sold to a major corporation headquartered in Chicago and the Packers name became associated with Chicago. Boeing, Caterpillar and Allstate are just a few of the big brand name corporations which are headquartered in Chicago.

Yes the funds from the transaction could benefit the Green Bay area but would the fan base be happy about being associated with a big brand company from Chicago? Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:57 pm

The Packers also have a significant and active philanthropic arm of the organization.

0 points
1
1
Leatherhead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 04:12 pm

So give the money to them.

Here's my gripe of of the day: It's easier to complain about problems than work for solutions. Now, I haven't spent a day in Green Bay in a long time, and I have no real idea of what's going on there, but I'm going to assume that money would help make things better, because it usually does.

Safer, better schools and streets. Meals for people who need them. Mental Health facilities and outreach.

Why don't the Packer say "We're selling our naming right for 10 years to Whatever Corp. and we're donating our portion of the proceeds to charitable endeavours in the area. And then Whatever Corp gets their name associated with this philanthropy and so they increase the pile. ? It's win/win/win.

This is literally money out of thin air, but it could make a huge difference in the lives of thousands of people.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

July 17, 2022 at 05:30 pm

Leatherhead, sure, selling naming rights is more "free money" to distribute, that's true.

It's hard to get tone cues from internet posts, but it feels like you may not be aware of the Packers financial activities in giving back to the communities of Wisconsin. Here's a link to a run down of their contributions, including a long list of recipients at the end of the article.

Rest assured, the Packers do put their money where their mouth is. It really is a great organization.

https://www.packers.com/news/packers-foundation-awards-1-million-in-annu...

0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:32 pm

The name Lambeau Field is part of the mystique around the place and the Packers. We should be careful before losing that distinctive feature and atmosphere. It’s hard to monetize that, but don’t discount it as of minor value, particularly when the team itself isn’t stellar.

As Dobber noted elsewhere in this tread, the draw of Lambeau is a significant factor in shaping Green Bay as it currently is. The Browns have also resisted selling naming rights, reflecting on their distinctive history. It’s not just us as the only publicly owned team.

1 points
1
0
jannes bjornson's picture

July 17, 2022 at 08:30 pm

It is a brand that carries perpetuity, not an image for a short-term scam.

2 points
2
0
Lphill's picture

July 17, 2022 at 08:18 am

Something not mentioned here that always amazed me is how here in New York the Jets and Giants share a stadium , would both teams benefit financially if they had their own? and they actually play in New Jersey not New York .

-1 points
2
3
EricinGB's picture

July 17, 2022 at 08:28 am

The Packers exist because of Curly Lameau and a group of Green Bay business men who sponsored the team and helped the team out repeatedly over the years. Then the City stepped in as well as the larger community...talking about naming rights without sharing the history of why the Packers exist and/or why Lambeau Field exists is just lazy journalism. Headlining the hook "Here's Why" without explaining the "here's why" is just lazy click bait.

-5 points
3
8
PeteK's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:16 am

The title is specific in what it will discuss. Additionally, the article was written for Packer fans who I believe are well versed in our history.

1 points
3
2
HarryHodag's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:00 am

I'm willing to bet 99.9999% of the readers here know the history of the Packers. To explain it again is silly. To the casual readers from elsewhere who don't understand, go to the Packers website.

3 points
3
0
murf7777's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:12 am

Great article and informative info. The only thing I’d say is “never say never”.

I know many on here don’t like Murphy as our leader, but the man has made some extremely important financial decisions for the Packers future. He took past visions and made them reality. That’s a sign of a good leader. The President of an athletic team is far more than just putting a good team on the field. In 20 years, when time has past, Murphy will be remembered as a great leader.

Yes, my last name is Murphy so I might be a wee lil bit prejudice:)

3 points
6
3
HawkPacker's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:17 am

You are correct Murph!! There a lot of posters who truly do not like Murphy and I must admit, I do not see why the dislike. Still there are others who don't like Gute and my thought is what's not to like.

-2 points
2
4
HawkPacker's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:57 am

I see I got a down vote when I just want a reasonable explanation. It is easy to hide behind a down vote.

2 points
2
0
Leatherhead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 10:34 am

Get used to it. Some posters here are so petty that if you annoy them, they’ll just downvote everything with your avatar. Never an explanation.

1 points
3
2
dobber's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:29 am

This is exactly why watching the counts isn't worth any of our time or energy...up or down.

-2 points
0
2
Coldworld's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:42 pm

Murphy has done a decent job outside of the football side, but he presided over the gutting of the roster while TT declined and still wanted the architect of that (covertly with his blessing), Ball as TTs successor. He then created a structure that obfuscates responsibility and chose the next coach himself and seems to have led the mortgaging of the cap to a point where we have Rodgers and rookies.

If the current year ends in a Super Bowl, probably the waste of Rodgers more prime years on his watch is forgiven. If not, with a cap hangover and maybe no Rodgers, Murphy’s legacy will probably not look so rosy.

In a very simplistic nutshell, that’s a statement of common arguments. As to how well the area developments do in the long term and if the team declines post Rodgers, we need to wait a while to see if the investment proves a long term boon.

0 points
1
1
murf7777's picture

July 18, 2022 at 09:15 am

CW…when Murphy offered Ball and Gutey their positions and they accepted with full knowledge of who was the final say on hiring the next coach isn’t “obfuscates responsibility”. They never had that responsibility to begin with. You can argue who should have the responsibility, but he didn’t take any responsibility away from Gutey because it was known upon hiring Gutey didn’t have that responsibility. According to reports and each of their quotes, all three agreed on the plane ride home to hire LaFluer after an intense weekend of interviewing many other candidates. Gutey also stated it was him who put LaFluer on the radar after playing Atlanta twice in I believe 2017. He is the one who brought LaFluer to Murphy as one to interview.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

July 20, 2022 at 01:49 am

We don't agree on the facts. When Murphy hired Gute and caused Gute not to interview with another team, Gute thought he would have the final say on who would be the next head coach. If you think that's incorrect, that's fine.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

July 17, 2022 at 01:11 pm

HawkPacker - don't even think about the downvotes. The fact that they downvote without replying states more about them than your comment(s). Let it be. Thanks, Since '61

1 points
1
0
HawkPacker's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:15 pm

Thanks Since'61 for your thoughts.

1 points
2
1
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

July 18, 2022 at 06:04 am

Murphy as President and CEO has two functions: one is to run the business side of operations so as to ensure the viability of the franchise and the other is to supervise the GM, who runs all things football.

I think Murphy has been a solid steward of the franchise's business activities. Titletown seems like a good idea to me, but no one really knows whether there has been any return on that investment. Expenses associated with titletown have been cited as reasons for lowered net profits over several years. One can hope that at some point soon the district will be cited as an area of significant revenue.

No one denies that TT was ill or that his last several drafts were poor. It was Murphy's job to assess the performance of the GM. He should have noticed TT's health issues. In this, he failed.

I don't like that he gave Gute the impression that Gute would have the authority to hire the new head coach and then pulled the rug out. GB ended up hiring LaFleur, so that worked out but it is still a bad look. I don't like the authority in football matters that he has usurped or the alterations in the chain of authority. I really don't know who didn't hire Rizzi and who hired Mo Drayton. I believe Murphy imposed Pettine on LaFleur

I think there are legitimate things to dislike about Murphy and things one could praise. I don't hate him, but my feelings are decidedly mixed.

I expect to read about contract extensions for Gutekunst and LaFleur fairly soon, either this or next year. And in any event, Murphy will retire by July of 2025.

0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:30 am

Agreed!

Murphy has done a very good job and doesn't get the credit he deserves.

-2 points
2
4
dobber's picture

July 17, 2022 at 09:59 am

Agreed. So many fans deride the TT district (a community and tourism friendly facility), but that, the atrium additions, and other recent changes are needed to keep the Packers viable and competitive. While the cap and a big chunk of team operations are funded through TV contracts and revenue sharing, these extra $$ keep the facilities competitive and modern.

Agreed also on "never say never". For now, the team is a contender and fan interest is booming. We'll see what happens with the team financially when that next deep lull inevitably arrives. As is pointed out, the Packers have sold naming rights for pieces/parts of the facility (the main gates), though, so you never know...

-1 points
1
2
Leatherhead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 12:04 pm

Agree, murf. A good friend of mine is the Athletic Director at a big 6A school district, and all this boring stuff with revenue and the budget is critical to putting good teams on the field.

I was against his hiring. He had no real roots with the Packers or Wisconsin, but he’s won me over.

-2 points
0
2
Spock's picture

July 17, 2022 at 10:16 am

Yeah, I always get a chuckle over some commenters saying the Packers are "Cheap" when they don't sign some shiny object player and point to Title town as somehow being a problem. History shows that the Packers typically (or at least used to) use almost all their cap money for players and future contracts and are competitive with other teams. Title Town and other stadium related income is necessary for the local economy and separate from the cap really. I'm an "owner" and knew when I purchased my stock in '96 it was really to help fund stadium renovations. p.s. I'm just wondering if Acrisure is a massage method, lol.

1 points
3
2
PhantomII's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:03 am

GB management is cheap. It was more obvious under TT on not signing good players becoming FA and not signing other teams FA. Recently it was obvious when management shot down ML getting a legit ST coach...
and we all saw how that turned out. After the love pick and AR debacle, management under some serious fan pressure has done an about face and is redoubled their efforts to field an overall Championship roster to not lose face on AR's last few years to lead the Packers to a SB appearance. Pressure has made a change...That's a good thing in this case. Management reissued stock for sale to the public to fill the coffers for large contracts. God willing we will ride this wave to another SB win. GPG

0 points
2
2
HarryHodag's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:04 am

Naming rights do bring in revenue but in Wisconsin the naming rights will likely be in the same financial category as the New York's or L.A. There it's Citibank. Here it's Johnsonville brats.

The Brewers changed naming rights, likely bringing in more revenue, but they aren't the global draw that the Packers have become.

Johnsonville Brats Stadium...it does have ring to it...(kidding!)

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:27 am

I'll get mine at the "Charlie Murphy Concession Stand".

-1 points
0
1
RobertSchuknecht's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:31 am

The Packers are getting naming rights money from Johnsonville with the Johnsonville Tailgate Village.

1 points
1
0
Since'61's picture

July 17, 2022 at 01:25 pm

Actually Harry in New York the Giants/Jets play at MetLife Stadium and the Mets play at Citi Field. Fortunately for me as a NY Yankee fan the Yankees have refused to sell their stadium name and hopefully they will never sell out. To date, like the Packers, the Yankees have not needed the money from a sale of naming rights.

I grew up watching the Yankees play in the original Yankee Stadium. 461 feet to Center field, 457 feet to the left field power alley. Except for Mickey Mantle home runs went out there to die. I'm still not happy with the new stadium but at least it remains Yankee stadium. Long may it run along with Lambeau Field.
Thanks, Since '61

3 points
3
0
Irish_Cheesehead's picture

July 17, 2022 at 11:20 am

I don’t get the stadium naming hype. The name on a stadium doesn’t influence the way I spend my money at all. I happy the Packers haven’t sold out.

5 points
5
0
SanLobo's picture

July 18, 2022 at 08:30 pm

Funny anecdote, a few years back there was a night game scheduled at Soldiers field on Veterans Day. The US Army asked the Bears/Soldier Field marketing folks what it would cost to “rename” Soldiers Field to US Army Soldiers Field for just that night. Not change any signage, just call it that for the night. The Chicago response back was, No, because they didn’t want to insult soldiers in the other services by excluding them. There are, of course, no soldiers in the other services.

1 points
2
1
marpag1's picture

July 17, 2022 at 04:45 pm

If it is clear that soldiers serve only in the army, why would the US army itself suggest a name that is so redundant as "US army soldiers?"

Easy... it's because the army knows very well that in common usage, the word soldier certainly can and often does refer to anyone in military service. The army wanted to make clear that they weren't promoting the navy or the air force or the coast guard, and they knew that the word soldier by itself is not specific enough to do that.

3 points
3
0
SanLobo's picture

July 18, 2022 at 05:16 am

That is exactly right. The Army wanted to rebuild the strength of association of Soldier with the Army. They didn’t like that the thing they identify with is taken by others as a generic term. It was the marketing team at Soldier Field that didn’t understand Soldiers as a generic term is insulting, which was the point of my post. Marines are Marines, Airmen are Airmen, Sailors are Sailors and Soldiers are Soldiers. I was standing there when the Colonel took the call. We all shook our heads at the reason Chicago gave for saying no.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

July 17, 2022 at 01:00 pm

The Packers have no need to sell naming rights on Lambeau. It won't impact their attendance and their other revenue streams including Titletown are providing sufficient alternative revenues. Also depending on how much they received for selling naming rights their status as a non-profit organization could be impacted.

The other way to look at this issue is from the buyer's side. As mentioned in the article many professional stadiums are located in or near major cities and/or population centers. Whatever a corporation invests in they study very closely at their return on investment including how they spend their advertising money.

Which advertising opportunity provides them with the most exposure for the money spent and therefore they highest potential return on their advertising dollars.
Therefore a city which has high traffic and foot volume are among the best places for a company to display their name. Here in the greater NYC area the Giants/Jets play in MetLife stadium. Literally millions of people can see the MetLife name on MetLife Stadium on a daily basis. Whether they are driving by on one of the many major highways or passing by on a commuter train or bus or even flying into Newark airport or any of the major NYC airports. It is a perfect public advertising location. The same is true for any of the major city stadiums. That doesn't even account for how many see or hear the MetLife name on TV/radio when a game/function is taking place there.

Conversely how many people pass by Lambeau Field on a daily basis during the off season? The return for a corporation on Lambeau Field is just not going to be the same as at a big city stadium. It could work for a local or regional company but are they going to have the resources to ante up to the asking price and to sustain the price over time? Probably not.

What should the price be to purchase the naming rights to Lambeau? MetLife originally paid $60 million for the naming rights to MetLife stadium. They continue to pay annual fees to maintain those rights on an annual basis. I have some insight into the original deal since I was consulting at MetLife at the time. I'm sure the original deal has been revised over the years but I'm also sure that it is still very expensive. For all the history and tradition at Lambeau it's not going to command that type of asking price.

Ancillary costs should be considered as well. Rebranding costs on everything becomes a factor. There are costs for the Green Bay Packers to change all of their marketing materials and advertisements from playing at Lambeau Field to playing at XXXXXX stadium. What if the naming rights were purchased by a company from Chicago and the Packers name becomes associated with a major brand name out of Chicago? How would that play out with the fan base?

Bottom line is that if the Packers don't need the money leave Lambeau alone. Thanks, Since '61

2 points
2
0
SanLobo's picture

July 17, 2022 at 10:50 pm

Naming rights is about one brand buying and leveraging equity of another. Few people outside of federal government employees have heard of GEHA. So GEHA bought the naming rights to the field at Arrowhead Stadium to gain an association with a winning organization and to increase awareness. They want to hear announcers say GEHA field at Arrowhead Stadium to suck off some of that sweet, sweet Brand equity from the Chiefs. It is more about the Chiefs than the stadium. Don’t underestimate the value of “XYZ” field at Lambeau. Or Lambeau Field at XYZ Stadium. It is worth more than just the eyeballs around Green Bay. The Green Bay Packer fan base is huge and spread wide across every state and overseas. And Packer games have for years drawn larger than average viewership than most teams. I don’t like the idea of selling the name, but I think you underestimate the value of the equity from an association with the Green Bay Packers to a National brand.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

July 19, 2022 at 09:54 am

San Lobo, I don't underestimate the value of the equity, I base my comments on ROI. Advertising is about exposure and preferably about on going and repeat exposure. Branding strategy is part of a corporation's overall marketing/advertising strategy. It is often combined with TV, radio and print advertising. See the brand driving by the stadium and see a TV commercial when you get home in the evening or when you go online or open a print medium.

Lambeau field is not in a location that millions pass by on a daily basis, especially in the off season.

I'm one of those few people outside of the federal government who is familiar with GEHA. They branded with Arrowhead because Arrowhead's price for naming was within their budget. The Chiefs have a smaller national fanbase than the Packers. The Packers fanbase is about 5.5 million nationally, the Chiefs is about 2-2.5 million.

NFL teams play 17 games per season. How many times are fans watching a Chiefs game going to hear or see the GEHA brand watching 17 games a year? The same for Packers fans. As I pointed out in my post a local or regional company can benefit from branding at Lambeau as the Johnsonville brat company has. But there is not enough exposure there for a major national or multi-national corporation. Economy of scale, ROI, and earnings are among the metrics used when deciding how to spend advertising dollars.

You said it yourself few people outside of the Federal government have heard of GEHA. What does that tell you about how well their branding at Arrowhead is working out? Conversely companies like MetLife, Home Depot, FedEX, Levi's,Heinz, AT&T, Lincoln Financial and Mercedes-Benz have millions of customers in the US and around the world. Now check that against the location of the stadiums they have branded with.

GEHA's products are reinsured by brands like MetLife, Prudential, Swiss Re, UHC, AFlack and other reinsurance partners they have worked with over the years. They are in effect a gateway for federal employees to gain access to their health, dental and vision benefits.

Quite frankly if I were advising GEHA who to brand with based on their fanbase I would recommend Lambeau over Arrowhead. Why? Because the Packers have twice the fan base as the Chiefs and the Packers have more exposure than the Chiefs. But again that is not the only reason. Lambeau could and should charge more than the Chiefs for their naming rights. GEHA made their decision based on their budget. They don't need economy of scale since they have a captive market of federal employees. Most importantly they do not need to answer to their shareholders or to earn a 15-20% ROI. However they have made the owners of the Chiefs a little bit richer.
Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

July 17, 2022 at 04:27 pm

Other than television broadcasters, what person in history has ever called Mile High "Empower Field at Mile High" or "Invesco Field at Mile High" or "Sports Authority Field at Mile High?" Not a damn person. It's Mile High.

I wouldn't give a pinch of owl crap if the Packers did the same thing. The idea that naming rights is "selling out" on your noble principles is kind of comical. Like it's the boogey man or something.

But whatever. Let's all meet at the Bellin Health Gate and have a beer.

5 points
5
0
Packman60's picture

July 17, 2022 at 05:30 pm

The Packers have sold naming rights to their gates, so they are able to generate additional revenue. While that doesn’t generate the type of income stadium naming rights would it does generate additional income and as a number of posters noted Titletown does generate significant income that other teams can’t generate. Hopefully, the Packers can continue to play in Lambeau for years to come.

0 points
1
1
Ferrari-Driver's picture

July 17, 2022 at 07:41 pm

Lambeau Field is a famous name which easily rolls of the lips of every football fan.

To call that stadium something other than Lambeau Field would be the equivalent of renaming the "Moon" to "Citi Bank".

0 points
2
2
Straya's picture

July 18, 2022 at 02:14 am

I find it hilarious that we're here discussing coporate branding at Lambeau Field and how the Packers won't sell out, when the Packers themselves were named after a corporate brand.

Were ACME Packing Co still a going concern that would have to be one of the best sponsorship deals ever signed.

1 points
1
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

July 18, 2022 at 06:54 am

They can call it Hairball Field if the price is right. Curly Lambeau died 57 years ago. After 30 years of football excellence and the memory of the Glory Years still persisting, the price is unlikely to go higher than it is right now.

I would miss the name.

1 points
2
1
packanimal's picture

July 18, 2022 at 10:13 am

Naming the stadium could bring in money. Having more money is better than having less. I propose that the team grant naming rights to the Curly Company -- https://www.thecurlyco.com/ The place would then be named Curly Lambeau Field.

1 points
1
0
cdoemel's picture

July 18, 2022 at 08:51 pm

Hahaha. That’s awesome!! Good one!!

0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

July 18, 2022 at 10:22 am

Football games bring in money to the local economy. Yet the locals are never called “greedy” when they tax the services. To market something that people like is not being greedy, it’s being wise. It’s a motivating factor in most transactions. Deals are made because both parties are comfortable with it. The Packers don’t need the money for naming rights and prefer to keep their brand as it is. The team funds repairs and upgrades with stock sales and (in the past) with a slight tax that had an end date. The local economy has benefited from this immensely. The Packers are truly a unique team in all of sports.

0 points
0
0
PackBeerBrats's picture

July 18, 2022 at 02:15 pm

Johnsonville Stadium

0 points
0
0