AT&T Park the latest in no-name stadiums

It’s time for an Official Talking Baseball Quiz.

1. Where is Ameriquest Field?

2. What does the Great American Insurance Company have to do with baseball?

3. What is the name of the stadium in which the Oakland Athletics play baseball?

If you are like the average baseball fan, I would imagine your answers were something like this: I have no idea, nothing, and the Oakland Coliseum.

Sadly, in this era of corporate naming rights, you would completely wrong. (For the real answers, just keep reading.) Non-descript corporate sponsorship names have taken over once-great stadium names, and in my opinion – my stuffy, traditionalist opinion – it’s getting to be a bit ridiculous.

At the end of last week, the San Francisco Giants announced that they would now be playing their home games in AT&T Park.

Now, just a second, you might say. Didn’t the Giants just get a new stadium in 2000? Why do they need a new one? Well, it is the same one, but this is actually its third name.

In 2000, the Giants opened up SBC Park to replace Candlestick Park. Their old park, named for its geographical location on Candlestick Point, was no longer an adequate facility for a team competing in the 21st century. And four years before opening the stadium, the Giants had finalized a $53 million agreement with the Pacific Telesis Group to name the new stadium Pacific Bell Park through 2019. SBC Communications, Inc., purchased PTG, and in 2004, the new stadium became SBC Park.

Last year, SBC merged with AT&T, and in less than a month, the stadium will be rechristened again. This time, it will be known as AT&T Park. Six years, three names. At this rate, the Giants will have to change the name nine times before the end of the original contract. Sprint PCS Field, anyone?

As a baseball traditionalist, at least when it comes to stadium names, this ridiculous name-changing symbolizing everything that is wrong with the way stadiums are named today. The Texas Rangers play in Ameriquest Field. What that has to do with Texas or the Rangers is beyond me. While the Ballpark in Arlington had a great ring to it, I guess the Rangers though a 30-year, $75-million contract was better.

In Cincinnati, the Reds play in Great American Ball Park. That’s a great name until you realize that Great American is an insurance company paying $2.5 million a year to Cincinnati for 30 years. Hey, that’s nearly one-third of Eric Milton’s contract!

Meanwhile, back in California across the Bay from San Francisco, the A’s no longer play in the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. Rather, they play in McAfee Coliseum which was recently called Network Associates Coliseum until another telecommunications merger eliminated Network Associates.

In my mind, this corporate naming lessens the impact of the ballpark. It’s not the same to check out a game in McAfee Coliseum as it is to go to Fenway Park. In 15 years, when the A’s are playing in AOL.com Coliseum but the Red Sox are still playing in Fenway – named for the fens that used to dot the area around the stadium – it’s clear that the Red Sox can still lay a claim to their stadium’s history. But when fans don’t know which corporation will name their stadium this season, it divorces the team from the stadium and the fans from the stadium.

Now, it’s quite easy to argue against my history/tradition defense of stadium names. First, corporate sponsorship of baseball stadiums is nothing new. Wrigley Field, built by Charlie Weeghman, was originally called Weeghman Field. When the Wrigley family acquired the team, they changed the name of the stadium to Cubs Park. In 1926, it was named Wrigley Field, and the name has become a part of Cubs lore since then.

This, in my mind, isn’t the same as the current naming craze. For 12 years, the stadium wasn’t Wrigley Field, but now that names has stuck. In 30 years, the Reds will sell the naming rights to Great American Ball Park to another company. They won’t stick with it for tradition’s sake, and thirty years of naming association with disappear into history as soon as the ink on the new contract is dried.

While historical naming rights seem acceptable, one aspect of the naming system about which I cannot complain is the money. In an era of economic disparity in Major League Baseball (coincidentally, a topic for an upcoming post), the money that Reds make each year on the stadium names provides them with an additional source of revenue that they are hopefully using to improve the team. Had these teams stuck with, say, Riverfront Stadium or the Ballpark in Arlington, these millions wouldn’t be flowing in.

In the end, I know it is important for these teams to maximize their revenue potential. The difference, especially for teams such as the A’s and Brewers who do not enjoy the financial windfall of the Yankees or Red Sox, is significant. It could be the difference between fielding a competitive team under a tight budget or a non-competitive team with a very low payroll.

However, at the same time, it would be great if Major League Baseball could figure out a way to avoid anymore two-and-out names or Enron Field debacles. I may recognize the need for corporate sponsorship of baseball stadiums, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

Sources

All Ballpark naming information, including history and contract details, comes from the excellent Ballparks.com.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “AT&T Park the latest in no-name stadiums”


  1. 1 J February 6, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    Actually I think the name of that park the A’s play in is called “Hell”…

    …scariest place I have ever watched a baseball game…

  2. 2 lisa gray February 6, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    hi ben!!!

    yeah, a lot of the names are stupid. i mean, nobody here calls our ballpark minute maid field – it’s either the ballpark or the Box. I know that a some of the old names were after an owner or (yecccch) politician, but the corporate names thing sucks.

    lisa

  3. 3 techne February 6, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    I don’t see any great ways out though–the problem isn’t anything to do with baseball, but the pace of corporate culture.

    As for Wrigley, it’s an interesting case in thinking about baseball and corpporations, not for the name but for the marketing. Its not hard to put together the argument that the focus on Wrigley as a destination, illustrated by how one can buy “wrigley field” t-shirts that don’t mention the Cubs at all, has hurt the team on the field.

  4. 4 Benjamin Kabak February 6, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    techne: I’m curious. Tell me more. I saw you’re a big Cubs fan. I think they are in a unique situation. I know Wrigley when they owned the team did not do a very good job of putting a quality product on the field. It pretty much mirrors the Red Sox decades of futility and poor team planning rather than any sign of a curse. But can they break out of it soon?


Comments are currently closed.



RSS River Ave. Blues

  • Game 43: A Big Test for Montgomery May 23, 2017
    Seven starts into his big league career, Jordan Montgomery has pitched like, well, most rookie pitches. Sometimes he looks great, sometimes he walks too many. That’s usually how it goes. Tonight will be a pretty big test for Montgomery even though the Royals are the worst offensive team in baseball. Kansas City will be the […] The post Game 43: A Big Test fo […]
    Mike Axisa
  • 2017 Draft: Adam Haseley May 23, 2017
    Adam Haseley | OF Background Haseley, 21, grew up outside Orlando, and went undrafted out of high school. After hitting only .275/.360/.407 during his freshman and sophomore seasons at Virginia, Haseley has broken out as a junior, and he currently owns a .400/.498/.688 batting line with 14 homers, ten steals, 40 walks, and only 19 […] The post 2017 Draft: Ad […]
    Mike Axisa
  • Aaron Hicks has been working out of first base, and hopefully the Yankees won’t need him there May 23, 2017
    All winter long, I and many others said there was no way the Yankees would get worse production from first base this year than what Mark Teixeira gave them last year. Teixeira hit .204/.292/.362 (76 wRC+) last season. And so far this season, Yankees first basemen are hitting .164/.276/.295 (59 wRC+), and that’s with Chris […] The post Aaron Hicks has been wo […]
    Mike Axisa
  • The Yankees have a bit of a strikeout problem right now May 23, 2017
    Last night, for only the eighth time in 19 games this month, the Yankees did not strike out 10+ times on offense. They struck out eight times, to be exact, and it helped that they faced Royals southpaw Jason Vargas, a finesse pitcher not known for missing bats. The Yankees have 18 double-digit strikeout games […] The post The Yankees have a bit of a strikeou […]
    Mike Axisa
  • Thoughts following Gleyber Torres’ promotion to Triple-A May 23, 2017
    Later tonight, top Yankees prospect Gleyber Torres is expected to play his first game with Triple-A Scranton. He was promoted from Double-A Trenton on Sunday. (The RailRiders were off yesterday.) I was planning to write something about the Torres promotion and what it all means, and it kinda morphed into a thoughts post, so here […] The post Thoughts followi […]
    Mike Axisa
  • Big flies and Big Mike lead Yankees to a 4-2 win over Royals May 23, 2017
    A two-game winning streak! It was a relatively stress-free win over the Royals on Monday. Good starting pitching, good hitting and good bullpen generally equal in a win and that’s pretty much what happened tonight. Big Mike! Tonight’s Michael Pineda was good, not perfect, but again, good. I’ll take a start like that any day. […] The post Big flies and Big Mi […]
    Sung-Min Kim
  • DotF: Austin continues rehab, Andujar has big game in AA win May 23, 2017
    Some notes to start the day: Double-A Trenton hitting coach Tom Slater broke down SS Gleyber Torres‘ swing frame-by-frame with Josh Norris, so make sure you check that out. Torres, as you know, was promoted to Triple-A Scranton yesterday. RHP Yefrey Ramirez was named the Double-A Eastern League Pitcher of the Week. He allowed three […] The post DotF: Austin […]
    Mike Axisa
  • Game 42: The Royals, Again May 22, 2017
    Once again, the Yankees are playing the Royals, this time in New York rather than Kansas City. The Yankees took two of three from the 2015 World Series champions at Kauffman Stadium last week. Since that series, both teams have lost two of three on the road. The Yankees did so in Tampa Bay, the […] The post Game 42: The Royals, Again appeared first on River […]
    Mike Axisa
  • 5/22 to 5/25 Series Preview: Kansas City Royals May 22, 2017
    This feels all too familiar, doesn’t it? The schedule-makers have a strange sense of humor. Nevertheless, the Yankees will spend the next seven games at home, hosting the teams with the worst and second-worst run differentials in the American League in back-to-back series. Playing twenty games in twenty days is never ideal, but playing subpar teams makes […] […]
    Domenic Lanza
  • The Masahiro Tanaka Problem May 22, 2017
    All things considered, it’s pretty incredible the Yankees are where they are even though Masahiro Tanaka has legitimately been one of the worst pitchers in baseball so far this season. Among the 94 pitchers with enough innings to qualify for the batting title, Tanaka ranks 91st in both ERA (6.56) and FIP (6.07). Yankees starters […] The post The Masahiro Tan […]
    Mike Axisa

Blog Stats

  • 62,411 hits

%d bloggers like this: