« More articles in 1   |   Go Home

No surprises here, but still a blow to the Yankees a month before opening the new digs:

The deal was being termed as a “pseudo stadium naming rights deal” because the two parties had discussed giving the bank premium branding in the new Yankee Stadium.

On Thursday afternoon, Bank of America confirmed to Newsday that talks were suspended last month.

A Yankees official told CNBC on Thursday that the two mutually agreed to part ways after seeing the heat that Citigroup was getting for putting its name on the new Mets stadium.

Let’s say the deal would have brought the Yankees $5-10 million per year. That would make it a fairly typical mid-market naming rights deal — even though it’s not actually a naming rights deal. So the question is, with the financials out of the picture, who is going to pay that much for an expansive in-stadium sponsorship? Especially when the naming rights market is comatose.

If anyone can do it, it’s the Yankees. But unless they’re announcing a new partner next week, it’s going to be very difficult to get all relevant signage up by Opening Day.

Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com

One Existing Comment

Add New Comment

  1. on February 27th at 07:59 am
    Joao said:

    I am curious to know your reaction to Bill Simmons’ NBA column on Page 2 arguing that the NBA is heading off a cliff financially, but that MLB will be worse off and the NBA will emerge the strongest of the 4 majors. I don’t have a good perspective on the MLB, but on the NHL side, it is my understanding that the CBA ties player salaries, even existing salaries, to revenues (players get something like 55% of league revenues), so if revenues fall off a cliff, the players contracts automatically re-set at the lower revenue level (i.e. a 20% reduction in league revenues reduces the $10 million contract to $8 million).

online sports betting