On Tuesday, Santa Clara’s City Council/Stadium Authority is expected to approve a small procedural change in the financing for the 49ers stadium. The change is fairly simple: Allow the 49ers to sell the naming rights to the stadium instead of the Stadium Authority. Doing so could reduce overhead for the Authority, which is important since it has no money of its own with which to operate.
Under the terms of the agreement (PDF), the 49ers – er, Stadco – would have 2 years to get the naming rights deal done before the task reverts back to the Authority. If a broker is used and is successful in getting the deal, it would get 5% of the top. The top of what, you ask? Well, the City isn’t willing to say. But they and the team have had a number in mind going back to when the stadium concept was hatched. Remember this?
$7 million a year for 40 years. That’s $280 million, or 40% of the $700 million naming rights deal announced two months ago between AEG and Farmers. The 49ers could be gunning for a higher figure because of what the Farmers Field deal represents. Then again, TBA Stadium won’t be domed so it won’t be flexible enough to hold nearly as many events, so perhaps a 40% deal is in order. If the 49ers have an on-the-DL Raiders agreement in their back pocket, it could provide impetus towards a higher number. Any increase over that $7 million per year figure could reduce pressure to sell Seat Builder Licenses (PSLs), which could in turn make financing the whole thing much more feasible.
The article mentions Yahoo! as a neighbor, though not as a naming rights partner. In 2007 I heard that Yahoo! was the likely candidate, though the company has since been knocked down several pegs and is still in a state of recovery. At this point they may not be the best choice, though they are certainly no fly-by-night operation. Intel may be a better partner, as would – you guessed it – Cisco. Both Intel and Cisco advertise heavily on ESPN and on other national sports broadcasts, so this would be right up their alley. However, you have to wonder about what Cisco’s possible deal with the A’s represents. Is Cisco’s naming rights worth more if the ballpark is in San Jose, not Fremont, and not tied to a land deal? Possibly. Would Intel or Cisco pay more than twice as much for naming rights to a NFL stadium than a MLB ballpark? That’s unclear. As much as I thought that the days of throwing funny money at stadia were over, the Farmers deal went and reset the playing field – even if it never gets built. We’ll find out over the next couple of years if it’s merely an outlier or the start of a trend.
On a tangentially related note, the Florida Marlins are looking to get a naming rights deal for its domed ballpark done sometime within the next month.
newballpark.org 
40 years is way too long for any naming rights agreement and is unheard of.
30 years is a more plausible # when it comes to a new stadium being built hence Farmer’s and their 30 year 700M agreement.
I am suprised the City of Santa Clara is throwing this back into the 49ers laps as if they get it done themselves then they would be in line to turn a nice profit for the Stadium Authority that funnels into the General Fund.
On the other hand this would reduce the # the Stadium Authority needs in general signifcantly and would be one less piece for the City to worry about……One can look at it either way.
Any company that advertises to the general public would be the best candidate. Some example are:
Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Cisco, Apple, Intel, HP, eBay, Electronic Arts, Intuit, nVidia, Adobe,.
All could “sneeze” and be able to pay the rate of $10-$15 million a year for naming rights that would expose them to the entire country, especially if Santa Clara gets a Super Bowl down the road.
Farmer’s Field is a “freak of nature” deal and I think the # is half of 700M or perhaps a little higher for the 49ers.
Farmer’s pays easily 25M a year in advertising so their thinking is “this is a good investment” for the entire company as right now they give out marketing funds to their agents and offices all over the US.
I say HP steps up and pays 400M over 30 years. They are the best bet because they are fiscally doing well and their current ad campaigns (Mark Hurd’s) are doing so well that putting their name on an NFL stadium would do wonders for sales of laptops and printers in the personal computing space.
Then again that is my “thinking” and perhaps I am “crazy”? LOL
It doesn’t seem likely that HP would sponsor both an arena and a stadium within a few miles of each other. You don’t see many companies sponsor two sports venues at the same time- I guess Compaq had the San Jose arena and one in Houston at the same time, but those are far enough apart that it seemed to work out.
I’m not sure how long HP has the naming rights for the San Jose arena, but I guess it is a possibility they could hop onto the stadium after they are done with the Arena (it would require the stadium being ready around the same time HP’s sponsorship of the arena is done) and who knows when/if the stadium will even be built.
I can’t imagine HP would be having any complaints about the arena right now based on the amount of people that go through it every year so I don’t really see them ditching that for the stadium.
@James- HP “inherited” the naming rights for the Arena because of Compaq. They still have kept their name on it since.
HP already sponsors the 49ers, hence you see their banners behind the podium at every news conference already.
It would a “drop” in the ocean to put their name on a brand new football stadium. The only problem there is right now is the lockout.
No one is going to committ until the lockout ends. But in due time someone like HP will step up and get this done.