Earlier this week Sam Zell was quoted as saying that he wouldn’t hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field. My first thought was that this seemingly crazy man wasn’t crazy but arrogant. I wrote something on Twitter and one of my followers and friends made a statement that Zell had the right to sell the name and Wrigley would always be Wrigley to him. He’s right, Zell as the owner of the Tribune Co, owners of the Cubs, has every right to sell the name to Wrigley. At the end of the day it’s a business and shareholders have to be answered to, and profits have to be made.
All that said, I think that there are certain franchises, that despite being privately owned (except the Packers), are public trusts. The Packers, Giants, Celtics, Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers, Canadians, are all franchises that are bigger than the owners, teams, and players. They are iconic symbols of their leagues and of their sports and most of their current owners understand this. They understand that without the fans and the history they wouldn’t be as valuable as they are today.
That is why I hope that Mark Cuban buys the Cubs and that the Selig and the rest don’t get in the way. I think Cuban gets it. He has said before that if he were the owner you could find him sitting out in the bleachers with the $10 per seat fans. Cuban is a sports fan first and understands what the fans want. Some people think he is crazy and obnoxious for the way he cheers on his Mav’s, but I love it. The guy loves to see his team win. Make no mistake about it he wants to make money, but he also knows that to make money you have to have a winning team and passionate fans, and he is one of the most passionate of fans.
So, Yes, Sam Zell, you have the right to sell the Wrigley name, but think about it, is it worth it? Couldn’t you find other ways to make a buck while preserving one the last great pieces of sports history? And to the company who might want to buy the rights…think about the exposure that you could get if you bought those rights and chose to keep the Wrigley name, that would probably get you more customers than slapping your name onto one of the sports greatest venues.




2 responses so far ↓
1 CMH // Mar 2, 2008 at 10:32 am
As the cited friend in said post, let me chime in here and amplify my position. 140 characters in a tweet does not do this issue justice.
My central thesis is that the experience of a Cubs game is what matters - not the name of the place where the experience happens. Would I prefer to keep it as-is? Sure. After all, the section of town is called Wrigleyville.
BUT if an alternative is driving out to the burbs to see a competitive Cubs roster in a new sponsor- friendly venue, then I say do what you have to do - take a page out of the Board of Trade workers and Zell. Zell. Zell.
And since we’re on the topic of corporate sponsorships, let’s not forget that Wrigley Field *was* a corporate sponsorship, albeit one that didn’t affect the P&L of the ball club as much. Did anyone lament the transition from Weegham Park to Cubs Park to a corporate-friendly name in 1926? Did anybody blog that?!
I hear Chris’s traditionalist argument, but it just doesn’t matter to me. As long as I have my sunny days between Clark/Addison/Sheffield and Waveland, you can call it Disneyland for all I care. I will call it Wrigley, and I will be enjoying the happiest place on earth.
Peace, love, and Old Style,
– cmh
2 CMH // Mar 2, 2008 at 10:35 am
PS: If you or Marc Cuban can get me a $10 bleacher ticket I would appreciate it. Such a thing does not exist in my world.
Leave a Comment