CIBC, BMO battle for soccer supremacy

Rita Trichur

thestar.com

A soccer rivalry is brewing between two of Canada’s biggest banks.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce announced Tuesday that it has signed a new sponsorship agreement with Visa for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

Bank of Montreal, meanwhile, is gearing up to make a significant soccer-related announcement later this week, sources say.

Recognizing that soccer is increasingly the ballet of the masses in Canada, the two banks are poised to battle it out over corporate sponsorship of that popular sport.

CIBC’s new deal with Visa, which is in the retail banking category, comes on the heels of its FIFA World Cup broadcast sponsorship earlier this year.

“More Canadians play soccer than any other sport. In 2010 we witnessed the passion and excitement of soccer fans across Canada and worldwide for the FIFA World Cup,” said Stephen Forbes, executive vice-president of marketing, communications and public affairs, in a release.

“CIBC is proud to be able to bring the energy, passion and excitement of the World's Game to Canadians again in 2014.”

CIBC used to be known as Canada’s pre-eminent soccer bank, a designation that BMO has taken great pains to claim in recent years.

On Thursday, BMO is set to make another important announcement in that regard. Sources expect that BMO will extend its sponsorship of soccer to Vancouver Whitecaps FC, which will join major league soccer in 2011.

In addition to partnering with the Canadian Soccer Association, BMO has the naming rights to BMO Field in Toronto and is a sponsor of the Toronto FC among other initiatives.

At the height of its soccer supremacy, CIBC was a “diamond sponsor” of the Canadian Soccer Association. That multi-million dollar deal, however, has since expired.

Nonetheless, CIBC is eager to renew its ties to the sport as it works to increase its share of this country’s personal and commercial banking market.

Sports sponsorships help banks increase their visibility with consumers. Soccer is particularly popular with new immigrants — a growth market for both banks.

Said Forbes: ‘We will again launch an integrated marketing campaign that demonstrates employee pride in CIBC and resonates deeply within Canada's multicultural communities.”

Earlier this year, CIBC held a coast-to-coast tour that was linked to its CBC broadcast deal.

'Colbert Report' to sponsor U.S. speedskating

'Colbert Report' to sponsor U.S. speedskating

Posted using ShareThis

Enough with the pro sports handouts
Dave Perkins
Thestar.com

Don't envy Peter Fonseca his job in the coming stuttering economy. As Ontario's tourism minister, he juggles the reeling U.S. dollar, $4-a-gallon gas down below and necessity to run ads reminding the locals to be nice to visitors. When you need to tell people that, you're in tough long before the first $9.50 glass of beer is sold to a disbelieving tourist.
The gang at Queen's Park has commissioned yet another tourism study, this time naming Greg Sorbara chair of the Ontario Tourism Competitiveness Study and Action Plan. Fonseca couldn't say how much the study would cost or exactly who would pay for it. We can guess.
Anyway, a particular old hobby horse here has been the willingness of our governments to subsidize professional sports with taxpayer funds and let's ride it again: Fonseca's ministry is open about its grants to events, some of extremely dubious value (it says here), owned or administered by wealthy corporations and individuals. There's a nearby chart that indicates, for instance, $150,000 a year and $550,000 in the past four years granted to the Rogers Cup tennis toona-mint for "marketing" purposes. This is Rogers as in Ted Rogers, the laughing billionaire who loves to publicly rub everyone's nose in the fact that he scooped the SkyDome, for which taxpayers covered the majority of the $620 million cost, for $25 million.
Do we feel good about this, knowing Uncle Ted's tennis division nuzzles up for a small taste every year?
Fonseca indicated that Ted and Larry Tanenbaum will be eligible to apply for "marketing" funds when they bring in the Buffalo Bills. Great. So we can put our tax dollars into helping kill off the CFL.
We learned recently about the now-gone auto race at the CNE sucking up $850,000 of our money over the years. How about the Tim Hortons Brier getting $125,000, $50,000 to Telus for golf's Skins Game, or the Grey Cup, which reaped a sizeable profit this year for Messrs. Cynamon and Sokolowski, getting $200,000?
It's happening in a province whose biggest city, this one, required a $160,000 donation from MasterCard, run by an American, to keep 41 public skating rinks open in December. (Those 41 rinks are closed now; it would have cost a reported $266,000 to keep them open and, yes, the province is one pocket and the city is another, but didn't all money come out of our pocket in the first place?)
All these funds come out of the tourism ministry's TEMPP fund, which stands for Tourism Event Marketing Partnership Program.
"Our ministry looks at all partnerships and how they are able to impact our economy in terms of tourism," said Fonseca, once a marathon runner of note. "Something like a judo tournament in my riding that attracted over 800 participants, many from all parts of the world. So that was great."
Maybe so. And doubtless the event needed the handout the way some enterprises don't.
"We'll also look at other partnerships, at things like the Indy, as well as with professional sports and amateur sports. What we are there to do is to really be the glue and the strategic partner to help develop and invest in a product that will attract tourists with it," Fonseca said.
If his ministry was serious, it would cease handouts to pro sports, which don't need them, and join the health people in supporting something like the 2015 Pan Am Games bid, which might draw a few tourists, in a pre-Olympic year, and also would leave behind a legacy of badly needed sports facilities.
Long term, giving kids places to play is a better idea here than spending $21 million on surveillance cameras to identify the swarmers on the TTC.

Overview of Ontario's Tourism Event Marketing Partnership Program funding for major sporting events:
Rogers Cup tennis
2004-05: $50,000
2005-06: $200,000
2006-07: $150,000
2007-08: $150,000
Canadian PGA Champ.
2004-05: $15,000
2005-06: $8,000
Grey Cup
2004-05: $200,000
2007-08: $200,000
Tim Hortons Brier
2006-07: $125,000
Telus Skins golf
2007-08: $50,000
x-Toronto Grand Prix
2006-07: $333,000
x-Grand Prix was allotted a total of $850,000 from 2003 to 2007.

Naming rights deal for Giants, Jets stadium could set record
Associated Press

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. — All sports teams want bragging rights, but with the cost of a new stadium now more than $1 billion, it's naming rights they're after.
As several of the most storied franchises in sports replace their stadiums, sports marketing experts expect corporations to pay record amounts for the right to name them.
And the teams are finding ways to make the big price tags worthwhile by maximizing the amount of exposure of a company's name and logo, even integrating it into the design of the building.
"There's more value to what's being offered," said Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a Chicago sports marketing firm. Especially in the New York market, where several new stadiums are going up and garnering record deals, corporations are getting more exposure and visibility, he said.
Already sold for record numbers: rights to the New York Mets' new stadium, purchased by Citigroup Inc. for more than $400 million over 20 years. Next up, the Chicago Cubs, as its new owner, Sam Zell, says he wants revenue from the historic ball field that still bears the name of a former owner that pays nothing to call the stadium Wrigley Field.
But the deal expected to set naming rights records is the new football stadium for the New York Giants and New York Jets in East Rutherford.
The stadium would create a historic proposition, Ganis said: The most value ever offered, in the most expensive media market, and for two NFL franchises. He predicts the deal to go for at least $25 million to $30 million annually.
"The NFL is such a marketing juggernaut in the world of sports, that there's just no other league that's close to it," said Denver sports consultant Dean Bonham. While he wouldn't estimate the amount, he predicted it would be a landmark deal.
Naming rights prices are escalating for several reasons: public support to build stadiums is waning, player salaries are increasing and stadium construction costs are rising. Stadium costs are "out of control," said Ganis, from the $325 million it cost to build the New England Patriots' Gillette Stadium in 2002 to $1.3 billion for the Giants and Jets stadium opening in 2010, a 300 percent increase.
David M. Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California, said recent deals are moving away from just advertising and branding. For example, the Oakland A's new Cisco Field would use Cisco Systems, Inc.'s technology to enhance ticketing, concessions and management of game-day operations.
"These newer deals are crafted as very, very elaborate business alliances such that these corporate partners are really involved in the building," he said.
Such will be the case, literally, at the new home of the Giants and Jets, where less will mean more.
The teams are seeking only five corporations who will pay to see their names on the stadium: One for the building itself, and four others in each corner of the structure, rather than the hodgepodge of billboards seen in other stadiums. Jeff Knapple, who is marketing the naming rights deal, declined to discuss an asking price.
"We feel the marketplace is always challenged by clutter," he said.
Uncluttering the field could make it more likely for the sponsors to be seen on TV broadcasts, therefore making it more valuable.
If the stadium brings in at least $25 million to $30 million annually as predicted, and with the four additional sponsorships, the teams could get more than double or even triple what the highest deal has brought in so far.
That belongs to the New York Mets, which will receive $20 million annually from Citigroup to name its new baseball stadium, or about $400 million over a 20-year contract. The New Jersey Nets got a similar deal from Barclays Bank PLC for their proposed new arena in Brooklyn, N.Y.
The Mets wanted a sponsor to extend the reach of its brand globally, and New York-based Citigroup was a perfect fit, said Dave Howard, the team's executive vice president of business operations. More than many teams, the Mets have drawn players from around the world.
"New York is the most international city, quite frankly in the world," he said. "It made a lot of sense to have a substantial New York presence as well as a global perspective."
For the sponsors, the reasons to enter into a long, expensive naming rights deal are varied, whether it's global expansion or hometown pride. Timing is also important.
Barclays wanted to expand its brand to the U.S., said Nets CEO and president Brett Yormark. The arena, part of a $4 billion project, has also earned cachet with star architect Frank Gehry and Brooklyn's reputation as an up-and-coming borough, he said.
"It's not about the team," he said. "It's about the building. This will be landmark building, a destination area."
For Prudential Financial, Inc., the decision to buy the naming rights to a new hockey arena meant improving its hometown of Newark, said Arthur Ryan, Prudential's chairman who retired as CEO last month.
Since its October opening, the Prudential Center name is heard daily on radio, the Internet and in print as the new home of the New Jersey Devils. Prudential paid $105.3 million over 20 years.
And before the Nets and Mets deals, the Houston Texans had negotiated an annual $10 million from Reliant Energy for its stadium that opened in 2002. Team president Jamey Rootes said Reliant wanted to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring a football franchise back to Houston.
Some teams hold out, however.
The Washington Nationals are still talking with potential candidates for a naming rights partner for their $631 million, publicly financed stadium, which opens this spring, said team president Stan Kasten.
"I don't know if anything will be done by opening day," he said. "There's not a particular deadline. We want partner to be correct and deal to be correct."
The New York Yankees balked at selling naming rights for a new stadium opening in 2009, potentially leaving hundreds of millions on the table.
Randy Levine, the team's president, said a naming rights deal would diminish the team's value.
"The Yankee Stadium name is sacred," he said. "Yankee Stadium is the cathedral of baseball and would be unseemly for a naming rights deal."

When spo(rt)nsors collide....

NASCAR, AT&T ready to battle on sponsorship issue

Tom Bowles

Cnnsi.com

On April 26, a hearing will be held in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, where NASCAR will represent itself against team sponsor AT&T in order to protect the rights of its series sponsor, Nextel. The case will determine if AT&T has the right to sponsor Jeff Burton's No. 31 Chevrolet in 2008 and beyond following the company's permanent name change from Cingular (the current sponsor of the No. 31) to AT&T. Depending on the outcome, Burton's team may need a new sponsor next season.
For now, the pending litigation has left NASCAR fans wondering how such a seemingly simple dispute can wind up in federal court. Further examination reveals issues of exclusivity, sponsor loyalty and marketing competition -- the latter as intense as the racing on the track. Here's a review of the key issues and developments leading up to the court date
Nextel and the grandfather clause
Potential conflict wasn't on the minds of Nextel officials when they were negotiating to sponsor NASCAR in '03. At the time, they were merely seeking maximum exposure as a new company looking to wrap itself around the sport's top level.
The growing cell phone giant wanted a high degree of marketing control to sponsor the Cup series, and their request was reasonable, given that outgoing sponsor Winston had engineered a deal for 31 years that gave it exclusivity rights at every level in NASCAR. From 1972 to '03, no other tobacco companies were allowed to sponsor any teams, drivers, or tracks hosting any NASCAR series without Winston's approval. With a $70 million per year investment on the table, Nextel was looking to get a similar boost out of its marketing dollars, a position NASCAR understood.
"There are certain sponsors that have these larger commitments, and therefore certain assets and rights," NASCAR director of business communications Andrew Giangola told SI.com. "The series sponsor helps all of our teams and all of our drivers. And because of their unique position in the sport, they deserve special protection."
In Nextel's case, that protection was offered -- but getting it wasn't as easy as it was for Winston. Kicking existing cell phone sponsors out when Nextel signed on could have been a messy situation for everyone involved, especially when two of those companies sponsored prominent teams. At the time, Ryan Newman and Robby Gordon were combining to win 10 of the 36 races in the series, and each had a cell phone company prominently displayed on the side of their cars (Newman had Alltel on his Penske Racing Dodge, while Gordon's RCR Chevrolet was sponsored by Cingular Wireless).
Not wanting to be the bad guy, Nextel came up with a solution that would appear to solve the problem while still providing it the exclusive rights it sought. Through a "grandfather clause," cell phone sponsors already involved in the sport would be allowed to continue participating as they already were -- as long as they met certain future conditions. NASCAR agreed to the clause, and Nextel became the new series sponsor (unlike Winston, the exclusivity does not extend to other NASCAR series such as Busch or Trucks).
"The way to think about [the clause] is it's a snapshot in time," Nextel director of NASCAR marketing Dean Kessel said. "As long as sponsors stay the way they are from that point in time (back in '03), they can participate in the sport as long as they want to. If those parameters change -- logos, marks, ownerships, things of that nature -- it's very clear, not only in the contract or other correspondences from NASCAR over time, that's not allowed."
"With the Sprint/Nextel relationship (Sprint and Nextel merged in '05), NASCAR allowed (just) Cingular and Alltel on the playing field," Giangola added. "Teams have known about that for years."
So what about other cell phone companies besides Cingular and Alltel? They're placed on an annual "competitor list," updated annually in association with NASCAR. Simply put, if you're on the list, don't bother looking to sponsor a team in the Cup series; Nextel's marketing presence wins out. It's a practice that, according to Kessel, isn't unusual.
"Exclusivity in sports is advantageous," he said. "Here in Charlotte, you cannot go to Bank of America Stadium and expect to see a Wachovia ATM machine. It's just not going to happen. We're paying a premium to have (exclusivity), and we think there are certain advantages with that we intend to leverage."
Tackling a merger
That leverage was largely hidden from public view -- until this year. At Atlanta in mid-March, eyebrows were raised when Robby Gordon's struggling single-car team had Motorola logos stripped from his car before qualifying because Motorola, which is instrumental in providing radios to teams in the Cup series, was on the "competitor list." After some wrangling behind the scenes, Motorola's sponsorship was allowed to stand, and by race day the logos were back on Gordon's No. 7 Ford Fusion.
But the exclusivity issue was now public, and the debate involving sponsorship -- the lifeblood of a team's survival -- was on. That's when a more serious controversy brought the issue to the sport's immediate attention.
While both phone companies under the grandfather clause -- Cingular and Alltel -- had remained as team sponsors, Cingular's driver had changed, with Burton assuming the reigns of the No. 31 by the middle of '04. That same year, Cingular went through a merger, acquiring fellow cell phone conglomerate AT&T Wireless.
After months of debate, late last year the new company made a decision to drop the Cingular name in favor of AT&T. With rebranding on its mind, the company wasted little time taking its marketing effort to the race track -- in mid-March, it proposed a new paint scheme with a small modification, allowing for two AT&T globes to appear on the side of Burton's car.
The company felt it was a minor change, but it violated the agreement NASCAR made with Nextel. NASCAR rejected the scheme, and AT&T responded with its lawsuit. From Nextel's vantage point, the issue is cut-and-dried -- AT&T is not a protected name and thus its logos should not be allowed on a car.
"That car can remain Cingular-branded," Kessel said. "As long as it stays that way, they can continue (in the sport) for the next seven or eight or nine years. We're not forcing a change there; these are decisions that are being made by (Cingular/AT&T). These were the parameters of the agreement; there's no new news here. Everybody knew the rules of engagement from day one."
Cingular spokesman Lauren Butler said her company has a different idea of what those rules are, especially since Cingular never stopped being a part of the No. 31 team.
"We have a 10-year relationship being involved with NASCAR," she said. "Cingular was not sold or acquired. The majority ownership that created the brand over five years ago back in 2001 has now simply increased its ownership to 100 percent.
"Our brand is changing. We're no longer Cingular; we're AT&T. To get value out of our sponsorship, we must be able to change our name."
According to Butler, AT&T felt the "grandfather clause" only kicked the company out of the sport if it increased the size of its logos or jumped to a different race team. Butler says the company has done neither.
"The way that we see it is that we've been a good partner for the sport," she added. "All we want to do is continue our involvement."
Maintaining a healthy balance
That involvement is now in question, with the outcome of the lawsuit leaving the future of the No. 31 team hanging in the balance. Burton, who won in Texas on Sunday, is off to one of the best starts in his career; he's in second place in the points standings, just eight behind leader Jeff Gordon. But if AT&T loses the battle in court and decides to drop sponsorship of the team, Burton could face a big challenge next year in trying to find a new sponsor.
Although officials from Richard Childress Racing (owner of the No. 31 car) could not be reached for comment, their displeasure with NASCAR's position is clear -- no one wants to lose the hand that feeds it, especially when that hand is worth millions.
Still, NASCAR maintains such unfortunate situations are a necessity in a world where everyone is always looking for their fair share of the marketing pie.
"Conflict and sponsors rubbing into one another has been part of NASCAR since the very early days," Giangola said. "We do our best to regulate it in a way that's fair. The France family understands that a well-funded field is essential to the sport. Without well-funded cars, you don't have the great competition that puts fans in seats. And that's what NASCAR's all about -- close, competitive, side-by-side racing."

FYI: For fans of Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

KFC, Subway top candidates for NASCAR

naming rights
SCENEDAILY

KFC and Subway appear to be the two leading candidates to take over naming rights for the NASCAR Busch Series, according to the Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal.
The story in this week's issue says that several companies have participated in negotiations with NASCAR and ESPN at one time. The entities are working together to sell the sponsorship, which is expected to cost about $30 million a year, according to the report.
That number triples what current sponsor Anheuser-Busch, which announced in December it would end its sponsorship after a 25-year run, has been paying.
Sources also told the publication that Dish Network could emerge as a candidate, though NASCAR's partnership with DirecTV seems to make that difficult. DirecTV broadcasts "HotPass" during the race and is the sanctioning body's official TV partner.

(In) Conspicuous Consumption of Canadianness
(See World Junior Hockey Championships, HNIC, ______ Brier, etc.)

The Rona Grey Cup? CFL eyes $10M payday League will seek corporate bidders after okaying sale of naming rights

Rick Westhead

The Grey Cup, as it has been known for 98 years, may be doomed.
The CFL's board of directors has quietly approved selling the naming rights to their tradition-steeped championship game, a move league insiders say may generate as much as $10 million a year.
And while some U.S. college football bowl games have tried to balance corporate interests and tradition by ensuring the name of the championship remains front and centre – consider the Rose Bowl presented by AT&T – the CFL will take a direct tack.
"As soon as 2008 you could see players competing in the Rona Grey Cup or the Ford Grey Cup," said one high-ranking league source. "It's for sale and the league will be pushing ahead with this."
Toronto will host the 2007 title game.
The decision to move forward with its sponsorship ambitions comes even as the CFL remains without a commissioner. The league has hired headhunting firm Korn/Ferry International to find a replacement for Tom Wright, but there's no sign that the search is close to ending.
That's not slowing down the league's franchise owners, who are enticed by the prospect of an additional $1 million a year per team. "If you had the chance to put an extra million dollars in your pocket and it meant changing the name of the championship, what would you do?" the league source said.
CFL executive Gavin Roth, who spearheads the league's sponsorship sales, said the league recognizes that the Grey Cup "is our most prized asset.
"We would consider an entitlement partner for the Grey Cup only under the right circumstances," he said.
It's not a certainty that the league's sponsorship pitch – agreed upon in recent months but not yet made public – will be eagerly received.
The league will go to the market arguing for the $10 million figure, in comparison to the $5 million cost of being the title sponsor for the Canadian Open golf championship, sources said.
But Tony Smith, an executive with league sponsor Sony Canada, said in an interview that $10 million was likely too steep for many CFL corporate backers.
And some sponsorship experts say the CFL may be risking more than it realizes by selling Grey Cup naming rights.
For starters, it's possible that even after a name change, some media outlets would refuse to acknowledge the new sponsor, said Bob Stellick, a Toronto-based sports marketer.
"That's what really hurt the (Royal Canadian Golf Association) when they sold the rights to the Canadian Open to Bell, some people just refused to go along with the name change," he said. "You really have to dump the championship (name) and come up with something else."
Another problem might be realized only years after selling the naming rights to the trophy donated by then-governor general Lord Albert Henry George Grey in 1909. "What if you do a deal with a company and then they walk away?" Stellick asked. "Then you're renaming the event again and it becomes really Mickey Mouse."
The words of caution should sound familiar for venerable CFL officials. Remember the Schenley Awards?
After their 1953 inception, the league's most valuable player awards were called the Schenleys until 1989, when sponsor Schenley Canada Inc. cut its ties to the league. The awards have had multiple sponsors since but are no longer as well known.
"The league has to ask itself, at what price do you sell your soul?" said Stellick. "The Grey Cup really is the soul of that league."

"Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket."

- George Orwell

First-time advertisers get Super Bowl kick
GRANT ROBERTSON

Researchers at the University of Colorado believe they have discovered an uptick in stock prices that happens a few weeks before kickoff each year, which is directly related to the companies who buy advertising.

A study of the stock prices for 279 publicly traded companies between 1989 and 2003 has revealed that, on average, companies who don't normally buy commercials during the Super Bowl get an unexplained bump in their stock price when they wade into the advertising spectacle.
Many of the returns won't make investors rich, but some of the jumps are significant. Across the entire field of companies studied, news that a company is spending big cash on a Super Bowl ad leads to an average increase of 1 per cent in the stocks, the study found. However, some companies have seen bigger increases of nearly 15 per cent.

Once the regular fluctuations over the previous 90 days are removed from the stock price, the trend becomes evident enough to suggest the game plays a role in the psychology of investors, said Eric Hughson, a finance professor at the University of Colorado who worked on the study.
"For companies whose advertising announcements are not expected, those firms experience positive stock price reactions on average," Mr. Hughson said. "It's not the most gigantic thing you've ever seen [for some]. But I would say it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

The report -- titled Touchdown or Fumble -- is an attempt to determine the value of a Super Bowl ad beyond the direct impact of a commercial on consumer behaviour. More U.S. households tune into the game than any other sporting event and a 30-second spot on CBS this year costs $2.6-million (U.S.).

In the past, several non-regular advertisers have enjoyed increases during the two-day period after their plans for a Super Bowl commercial were announced, Mr. Hughson said. Reebok International Ltd. rose 5.1 per cent in 1992, while E*Trade Group Inc. jumped 14.7 per cent in the dot-com boom of 1999. However, regular advertisers such as PepsiCo Inc. and Anheuser-Busch Cos., don't experience any Super Bowl bump.

Market watchers are skeptical though. One New York analyst who follows Coca-Cola Co. said he doesn't expect to see any meaningful movement in the stock even though the soft-drink giant is returning to the Super Bowl after an eight-year advertising hiatus. "It's not fundamentally driven," said the analyst, who spoke about the report on condition of anonymity. "I certainly wouldn't look at something like that."

The results this year are mixed. Coke's shares were flat in the two days after its announcement. However, Cadbury Schweppes, which bought ads for its Snapple drink brand this year, got a 1.5-per-cent bump during the same period after its campaign was unveiled. The shares have since climbed 6.2 per cent. First-time advertiser King Pharmaceuticals Inc., a manufacturer of blood-pressure drugs, gained 3.1 per cent over the first two days after the news, while Gamin Ltd., a maker of GPS equipment, rose 2.3 per cent.

A costly Super Bowl week fashion faux pas by Urlacher
Associated Press

CHICAGO — Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher was fined $100,000 by the NFL for wearing a cap during Super Bowl media day that promoted a sponsor not authorized by the league.
NFL rules prohibit gear that advertises any product but a designated sponsor, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said Wednesday.
Urlacher was fined for drinking vitaminwater and wearing a vitaminwater hat during the media session in Miami leading to the title game. Gatorade is the NFL's official drink.
McCarthy said this is the first time such a fine has been levied. He added that $100,000 is the standard fine for such a violation at the Super Bowl. A violation during the regular season is $10,000. It is $50,000 at the Pro Bowl.
The fine recalls an episode involving Chicago quarterback Jim McMahon in the playoffs following the 1985 season, the previous time the Bears made the Super Bowl.
McMahon wore a headband that said "adidas" in a playoff game against the New York Giants, and then-commissioner Pete Rozelle fined him $5,000 because the shoe company was not an NFL sponsor. The following week, in the NFC title game against the Los Angeles Rams, McMahon wore a headband that read "rozelle."

Follow the Sport sponsorship: Arena Footbal to NASCAR to Poker

Super marketing deals up for grabs
BRIAN MILNER
Globe and Mail

If the favoured Indianapolis Colts prevail in the Super Bowl on Sunday, quarterback Peyton Manning will finally remove the stigma of never being able to win the big game. But regardless of what he accomplishes on the field in Miami, he will not reap the largest rewards off the field. That's because Manning is already a commercial superstar, with a high profile, a bankable image and a slew of impressive sponsorship deals unsurpassed in the National Football League.

Thanks to lucrative contracts with such major consumer marketers as Sony, Reebok, Sprint, DirecTV, MasterCard and PepsiCo's Gatorade brand, Manning raked in close to $12-million (all figures U.S.) last year, putting him first among NFL players and ninth among all athletes. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, Manning's leading rival, ranked second among NFL players at $9-million in Sports Illustrated's annual tabulation.

"From a marketing standpoint, his upside is a little bit limited," David Carter, the executive director of the University of Southern California's Sports Business Institute, said of Manning. "He's already pretty much the gold standard for the NFL endorser. He really can't get much higher." But if Manning has little room in his crowded marketing portfolio for more deals, others taking the field on Sunday, or just walking the sidelines, stand to make big scores if their team does well. While everyone else watches the game, the marketing pros will be keeping a close eye on a handful of players from each team, as well as their coaches.

Indeed, Colts head coach Tony Dungy and his Bears counterpart, Lovie Smith, could outdo any of their players in endorsement revenues. Both have what marketers seek: intriguing personal stories that include triumphs over adversity, a renowned work ethic, strong personalities and the respect and admiration of peers, players and fans. The fact that they are the first two black coaches to lead their teams to the Super Bowl may add to their appeal, but probably isn't going to be a big factor for marketers. For the winning coach, "you're looking at seven figures per year, multiple years," said Marc Ganis, the president of SportsCorp., a sports industry consulting firm in Chicago. Dungy's life story, which includes the tragedy of a son's suicide, and his classy demeanour will make him a sought-after pitchman, should he choose to cash in on his marketability. Smith may not turn into a Mike Ditka, Carter said. "But if you can win in Chicago, you can get big recognition," he said.

Among the players, star linebacker Brian Urlacher is the only Bear who stands to reap a windfall from a dominant performance. Urlacher is already well known in the national arena, where he has pitched products for Nike, Under Armor apparel and Sega, among others, and has even appeared in one of Manning's MasterCard advertisements. If the Bears win, he'll be a natural choice for soft-drink, fast-food and other national marketers, Ganis predicts. For the rest of the Colts and Bears, the Super Bowl should be viewed as a platform to help build their images, Carter said. Those who have the one brilliant game will undoubtedly get some short-term endorsements, particularly in their local market, but they will soon be forgotten unless they can parlay the acclaim into a solid career.

Q: What do you do if your college doesn’t have a football team? (or an athletic department for that matter?) A: Sponsor an NFL one.

Cardinals get collegiate feel: University of Phoenix buys naming rights to stadium

Associated Prees

The University of Phoenix, the nation's largest private university, will pay $154.5 million over 20 years for the right to put its name on the Arizona Cardinals' new stadium here, team officials said Tuesday.
The naming-rights deal is the first sports-marketing venture for Apollo Group Inc., the University of Phoenix's parent company, said Apollo President Brian Mueller, and is part of a major new branding campaign for the school.
The for-profit University of Phoenix has 250,000 students, most of them working adults. Its parent company had $2.3 billion in revenue last year, ranking it among Arizona's largest companies.
"We want to lend more credibility to the students who earn degrees from here," Mueller said.
The stadium also is the new home of the Fiesta Bowl, and in January, will host the first of the new national college championship games. It also will be the site of the 2008 Super Bowl.