The Staples Center has a new name that’s even dumber than “Staples Center”

I generally try to avoid reporting on which corporate monikers are being slathered on the side of sports venues, because nobody is paying me to drop their names into my posts. (If anyone is interested in paying to place ads in Field of Schemes posts: We don’t allow that kind of shenanigans, please stop emailing me, already!) But the sale of the name of the Los Angeles arena that has been known for 22 years as the Staples Center to a cryptocurrency company whose name rhymes with, um, schmypto-schmot-schmom, is notable for a few reasons:

  • The company, which makes a cryptocurrency buying and selling app and is incorporated in Malta and headquartered in Singapore, is paying $700 million over 20 years for the naming rights to the Lakers and Kings arena, which is a hell of a lot of money for a used arena name. (Do you really think anyone in L.A. is going to call it anything other than the Staples Center?) This is apparently a record price, beating out the $800 million Canadian (about $650 million U.S.) that a big bank paid to rename the Toronto Maple Leafs arena in 2017.
  • History shows that the success of naming-rights deals for the buying companies’ fortunes are, uh, not so good. Talk of a “naming rights curse” goes back nearly two decades, to when naming-rights sponsors Enron, PSINet, Trans World Airlines, and National Car Rental all went bankrupt in quick succession. While I am no expert in cryptocurrency beyond having read the greatest article in the history of articles, it’s worth noting that even one crypto publication called the L.A. naming rights deal “the corporate equivalent of buying a Lamborghini: functionally almost useless, but a huge signal to the world that you’re winning, exactly because you’ve got so much money to set on fire.” The buyer in this case, it noted, is only the fourth-largest crypto exchange out there and has “relatively thin brand recognition,” but that’s certainly something that lighting money on fire should remedy, at least so long as the company can remain in business while shelling out $35 million a year on a big-ass arena ad.

So aside from this maybe being a sign that maybe you shouldn’t buy stock in this one crypto company, does the naming-rights deal have much significance for the future, or present, of sports venue financing? If nothing else, it’s an indication that there are still people out there with too much money and the notion that using it to slap their name on a big building that shows up on TV a lot is the best use of marketing dollars, the history of Enron and its ilk be damned. So maybe you’ll see a few more deals where team owners use naming-rights money to fund buildings without needing to tap the public purse — the L.A. arena, don’t forget, was mostly financed privately, notwithstanding a $70 million loan from the city of L.A. — though in most cases they’ll no doubt still want the public cash so they can pocket as much naming-rights money as possible for themselves. It’s certainly a good argument for pushing back against stadium funding demands, though: Hey, why doncha ask some crypto bros for a few hundred million before you come hitting up taxpayers? is an excellent thing to practice shouting at your next city council hearing.

Other Recent Posts:

Share this post:

19 comments on “The Staples Center has a new name that’s even dumber than “Staples Center”

  1. “Amway Center” is still allowed to exist in this world, so naming venues after crypto joints seems like fair game.

    1. To be fair, owners putting their other business interests all over a venue is a long standing tradition.

    1. Laurie Penny deserved a Pulitzer just for the sentence “John McAfee has never been convicted of rape and murder, but—crucially—not in the same way that you or I have never been convicted of rape or murder.”

  2. My first thought when I heard about this was “I hope they demanded US dollars up front, because any deal where they assume this company will still be able to pay them in 5 years seems like a pipe dream.”

    And, well, looks like my assumption of competence was unwarranted!

    1. It doesn’t matter. If they go bust. They can sell the rights to the next scammer that comes along.

  3. As a Lakers fan it will always be STAPLES Center to me. But DAM! $700 MILLION?! Any idea Neil how that money gets distributed among the tenants; Lakers, Clippers, Kings? Or does the current arena owner get all the funds?

    1. AEG (Phil Anschutz) gets it, and Anschutz co-owns the Kings.

      $700 million sounds like a lot, but it’s only $35 million a year, which is about 17% of the Kings’ annual revenue in a normal year, and will likely be a lot less than that by the time the deal runs out, assuming the crypto company is still in business then. Not nothing, in other words, but also not quite “DAM!”

      1. Thanks Neil. Ironically, when I open your site on my phone I get a “Crypto.com” pop up ad. Imagine that ;)

  4. If a team takes money from any municipality to build a ballpark or arena, the city should have the first choice in naming rights. Basically they are paying more than any corporate sponsor so they should have the naming rights.

      1. Depends on the city. Kansas City put the kibosh on reaming Kauffman to Avrest Bank Park, so it is possible.

    1. There’s a banner in the Golden 1 Center that’s a tribute to Arco Arena and Sleep Train Arena, it makes no reference to the time spent as Power Balance Pavilion.

      (Between you and me we can pretend that it was called King’s Court at the time.)

      1. I don’t know if you’ve looked, but fan comments on any Kings’ FB post are just savage. It’s almost like fans have had enough.

Comments are closed.