Premier League sponsors Barclays will not renew their £40million-a-year deal when the current agreement expires at the end of the 2015-16 season. The bank agreed a £120m three-year deal in 2012 for the present rights – an increase of almost 50 per cent on their previous £82m contract. But with Sky and BT Sport paying a record £5.1billion for TV rights from the start of the 2016 season, Barclays fear the cost of the next sponsorship will also rise considerably. Who's ready for the Etihad/Qatar Airways Premier League
Well it's hard to identify a measurable ROI for something like a league sponsorship. One meager attempt I noticed was at the beginning of last season the emphasis by the commentators on using Barclay's premier league every time rather than simply the English prem etc. Personally I think it's silly to sell naming rights to the league unless there's an integrated marketing campaign to go with it. Yes, there are literally hundreds of millions of supporters worldwide of the 20 BPL teams. However, as a bank unless you serve their specific country, you're not going to see much financial return beyond perhaps being top of mind when there are options to use a UK bank atm or similar. Barclays (or any bank) would be better served to sponsor a team jersey. By drilling a level down there's a better defined market (ie Chelsea supporters or similar). This let's the bank not only get closer to the fans but also benefit by letting the fans become their walking billboard. For example, I'm a Liverpool supporter and only know Standard Chartered, a bank from Singapore, through their sponsorship of the Club. While I don't have plans to go to Singapore any time soon or open a SC account (I don't know if they even have branches here in the States), it gives the bank the opportunity to not only reach a worldwide audience but build goodwill with a specific group of supporters. Barclays doesn't have that advantage at the league level. Sure it's global awareness for the most popular league in the most popular sport worldwide, but a more generic association than a relationship with a specific club's supporters.
I'm glad Barclays are ending their association with the Premier League givne their sordid recent past, and also because "BPL" is irritating. That said, it's hard not to imagine something worse. I miss the innocent days, when football was mostly sponsored by lagers.
"Cross comes in from the pepperoni corner...." "[Team x] set to attack the anchovies end in the second half" "Thin crust Yellow card shown to [player x]..."
In England it's constantly referred to as the Barclays Premier League, it appears to be different abroad and doesn't have as much emphasis as here.
No sponsor from 2016. Organisers have announced today the competition will be known simply as "The Premier League", with more focus on secondary sponsors. The move reflects the organisation's desire to mirror major American sports leagues like the NBA and NFL in presenting a 'clean' brand.
CindyMargolis.com Premier League? Nope. as much as this fan of hers wants to see it happen it ain't. I can also relate to Arsenal's shirt sponsorship deal with O2 (with THE coolest logo setup of any football jerseys especially the 2002-03 navy blue away strip with the "O" in "O2" fitting perfectly in the center of the vortex on the front of it) from 2002-06, even though O2 does not do business in America. I own all 8 strips they wore for those 4 years, and I only knew about O2 through their sponsorship deals with the Gunners. The same thing also with Emirates Airlines who now sponsor the jerseys and have so from 2006-present.
My master's dissertation at Newcastle Uni Biz School examined stadium naming rights and fan sentiment towards the sponsors. I choose Mike Ashley's handling of SJP becoming SportsDirect.com @ St. James Park (before it became Sports Direct Arena in 2011) and Arsenal's handling of the Emirates sponsorship as case study examples.
It's notoriously difficult to prove ROI from naming rights. They usually are the result of a key exec's personal interest - no surprise a British bank would sponsor football. I am sure the prem charges an ungodly sum of money for the league's naming rights. It would be hard for Barclays to justify the cost if they can't point to ROI, which as a bank they no doubt would like to do. They would be better off sponsoring Chelsea or ManUtd jerseys than the league, where jersey sales can at least be quantified. They also need to tie the sponsorship to the business better IMO - maybe you open a Barclays checking acct and enter for a chance to win tickets to see your favorite premier league team. Not only would this be a popular promotion but it would be effectively free market research that Barclays could then use to perhaps sponsor the most popular team of its customers when their prem sponsorship is up. Another idea would be to use your Barclays card to buy prem tickets x times and get double the interest on your account during the premier league season. Basically, they should do something creative that benefits the banking customers day to day and ties in their BPL sponsorship. At least while I was living in the UK, there wasn't much of a connection between the two (though I was a Lloyds customer).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Barclays are looking for simple name recognition in the UK as much as they wish their brand to be associated with premier luxury. You don't really see companies as dominate in Britain as Barclays sponsoring shirts; sticking their name alongside Wonga.com and Chang beer doesn't do much for them. Even Chevrolet aren't all that big in England. Same for Yokohama (the tyres, not the city... well, okay, the city too).