Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jamaal510

(10,893 posts)
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:32 PM Dec 2012

Do you like stadiums/arenas being named after corporations and businesses? Why/why not?

Personally I'm not crazy about the idea of stadiums and arenas being named after them. What happened to the time when more stadiums were named after teams or areas such as Candlestick Park, Tiger Stadium, Cleveland Stadium, Ebbets Field, and Chicago Stadium? Today we have mostly names like O.co Coliseum, Citi Field, Wells Fargo Arena, HP Pavillion, Busch Stadium, Staples Center, Target Field, and Safeco Field.


13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
0 (0%)
No
12 (92%)
No opinion
1 (8%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you like stadiums/arenas being named after corporations and businesses? Why/why not? (Original Post) Jamaal510 Dec 2012 OP
Well, it makes it clear who really owns things. nt bemildred Dec 2012 #1
I voted no, becasue I'm fed up with the corporatization of America and nothing but $$$$$ as RKP5637 Dec 2012 #2
Damn that Wrigley Field! alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #3
The Corporate States of America. 99Forever Dec 2012 #4
If they paid for them...sure nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
Only when it's time to go deface Arco Arena after the oil spill XemaSab Dec 2012 #6
America is for sale to the highest corporate bidder, apparently. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #7
I'm fine with it. Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #8
Not really but it gives teams more money to compete. MrSlayer Dec 2012 #9
I'm not against that exactly. It's more the kind of blackmail that goes on involving brewens Dec 2012 #10
I don't care if they call it Shithouse, as long as I don't have to pay for it. RagAss Dec 2012 #11
No. They didn't pay for them. With rare exception the taxpayers paid the bills, they just kick in a Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #12
If it keeps the price of tickets down customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #13
Before Tiger Stadium it was Briggs stadium. longship Dec 2012 #14
I loved Mile High Stadium. beveeheart Dec 2012 #15
We even had to fight to fight to keep Bucky. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #17
No, and here's another reason Canuckistanian Dec 2012 #16
They're going to tear down the Meadowlands and the taxpayers still owe $100M from it's construction. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #18
TD Bank North Garden, jobing.com Arena, Quicken Loans Arena, Edison Field... Initech Dec 2012 #19

RKP5637

(67,089 posts)
2. I voted no, becasue I'm fed up with the corporatization of America and nothing but $$$$$ as
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:39 PM
Dec 2012

a #1 priority.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
5. If they paid for them...sure
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:43 PM
Dec 2012

They don't. So no...

In fact publicly funded stadiums should go the way of the dodo.

(And no choice in poll to explain this)

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
8. I'm fine with it.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:46 PM
Dec 2012

Building a stadium is expensive. Anything that makes that more affordable, I'm fine with. I realize a lot of times the team gets the money from naming rights and not the city, but if a contract was well written, then they could ask the team to pay more for the stadium and get the naming rights (so the team makes a bit of money, and the stadium makes a bit of money.

 

MrSlayer

(22,143 posts)
9. Not really but it gives teams more money to compete.
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:47 PM
Dec 2012

I prefer War Memorial Stadium or Veteran's Stadium over some corporate bullshit but things are what they are.

brewens

(13,547 posts)
10. I'm not against that exactly. It's more the kind of blackmail that goes on involving
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:03 PM
Dec 2012

the franchises. These team owners threaten to move the cities team if they don't get their stadium built. I'd like to see two things done to prevent that and get more teams run like The Green Bay Packers.

Any owner that proposes to move a team must first offer to sell it to the city or county at fair market price. They are not allowed to keep the team name in any case.

The truth is that many of these owners could afford to build their own stadiums if they had to.

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
12. No. They didn't pay for them. With rare exception the taxpayers paid the bills, they just kick in a
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:20 PM
Dec 2012

tiny fraction to buy the sign.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
13. If it keeps the price of tickets down
Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:44 PM
Dec 2012

what's wrong with it? A brief mention of the whole name is made during the broadcast, if that's all that the corporation gets for its money, what's the harm?

Advertising only works on weak minds.

longship

(40,416 posts)
14. Before Tiger Stadium it was Briggs stadium.
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:19 AM
Dec 2012

And some time before that, it was Navin Field. People have been paying to get their name on stadiums for some time.

I attended more than one game at Briggs. Yes, it was the same park that was called Navin, and the same one called Tiger Stadium. BTW, it was a wonderful venue to watch baseball. I saw first baseman Norm Cash blast a homer over the roof in right field once. As soon as the ball left his bat everybody knew it was gone. The stadium rocked as we all stood to watch the ball sail literally out of the park. Cash did that feat four times, IIRC.

Many memories at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull. Now, all in the past.

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
16. No, and here's another reason
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:23 AM
Dec 2012

Our local Ottawa NHL stadium has had THREE different names since it was built in 1996. The Palladium, The Corel Centre and now Scotiabank Place.

Once these facilities decide to sell out naming rights, there's a time-limited contract for each new name.

As a result, people don't even know what to call their local stadiums. Why does EVERYTHING need to have a price?

 

Egalitarian Thug

(12,448 posts)
18. They're going to tear down the Meadowlands and the taxpayers still owe $100M from it's construction.
Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:05 AM
Dec 2012

These teams are owned by billionaires and generate more billions, yet the taxpayers are expected to pick up the check and than pay exorbitant ticket prices.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you like stadiums/aren...