Bailed Out Banks Still Spending Millions On Sports Sponsorships, Considering New Ones

Tax paying sports fans beware... it appears that you may be helping sponsor major teams whether you like them or not! A couple reports out cite how bailed out banks are still spending millions on sponsorships. Moreover, Bank of America is considering a new sponsorship with the Yankees. Read below.

ABC: Bank Of America doled out around $10 million for super bowl festivities...

Despite a near collapse that required $45 billion in federal taxpayer bailout funds, Bank of America sponsored a five day carnival-like affair just outside the Super Bowl stadium this past week as President Obama decried wasteful spending on Wall St.

The event - known as the NFL Experience - was 850,000 square feet of sports games and interactive entertainment attractions for football fans and was blanketed in Bank of America logos and marketing calls to sign up for football-themed banking products.

HuffPost's Ryan Grim: Congressmen want Citibank to nix its Mets sponsorship deal...

In 2006, Citigroup entered into a $400 million contract with the New York Mets for naming rights to the team's stadium, now called Citi Field. That was then. Housing prices were climbing, no-doc loans were flying out the door and Citigroup was encouraging us all to "Live Richly."

This is now. Citigroup has taken $45 billion in bailout funds -- plus another several hundred billion in guarantees -- to stay afloat as it contemplates breaking into smaller pieces. With that cash in mind, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, one of the House's most liberal Democrats, and Texas Rep. Ted Poe, one of the most conservative Republicans, see a problem with the $400 million contract. The duo wrote newly-confirmed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner Thursday urging him to nix the deal.

Charlotte Observer: Will Bank Of America continue to negotiate a Yankees sponsorship deal?...

Charlotte-based Bank of America Corp. continues to negotiate a possible New York Yankees sponsorship amid increased scrutiny of spending by banks that have received government assistance.

Published reports in September said Bank of America was close to a deal to become the largest sponsor in the new Yankee Stadium, although the agreement wouldn't include naming rights. Bank of America already has a sponsorship with the baseball team that includes Yankees-themed credit cards and checking accounts.

Comments

[jerrypl]

Wake up America!!! This has been the world's biggest Ponzi Scheme (Google it). This has been going on for the last 30 years. They are economic vampire predators enjoying corporate welfare programs presented through the Treasury and tax codes.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[From the Raft]

Hey, forget these free spending, corrupt, non- managed banks. They won't be around much longer with or wirhout more bail outs.

There are thousands of strong well managed banks ready to take their place when employment picks up and the drop in homes valuse bottoms out.

Let them have their farewell parties!

[Marc Reid]

I will be working video/subcontract production for the NBA All-star in Phoenix starting this week and will be paying attention to those who sponsor all the sideshows involved. I wonder if Bank Bail-out /TARP fund's will be involved in any Corporate shindig's?

[thedave108]

In this country the bigger criminal you are - the better off you live. Thats what its become - A country full of dogs. Cheaters, thieves and criminals and its all backed up by the criminals we call our gov't. We are screwed. Did the banks that stole (err Imean received) the bailout money negated ANYONE"S bad mortgage. NO - There were paid off for it yet the debt remains. Until we take to the streets in numbers we will continue to get spit on.

[bygollymissmolly]

What I would like to see happen is for President Obama to establish a National Bank of the USA set up strictly for the purpose of lending money to Main Street. Then split the remaining TARP money between the new bank and helping homeowners keep their homes.

Creating a National bank has happened in the past and it worked.

[hollybork]

Agreed. They could provide funding for people to rennovate their homes and businesses to make them more energy efficient. They could also finance green technology start ups. The financing could come from "Green Bonds" sold by the government to the public that pay a decent rate, say 4%.

[aBr1t]

You have a bank... its called the treasury...

Get rid of the Fed.. who charge intrest on every doller your Goverment Prints!

JFK TIME BABY!!!

[bygollymissmolly]

There is no way they can justify this. And they are really tone deaf if they didn't see the negative publicity that would come of it. If I had money in any of those banks I would be marching in tomorrow and pulling all my money out and put it into a Credit Union. And I would let them know why I was doing it.

I don't have to do that, though, because I have banked with a Credit Union for the last 20 years. No complaints and my Credit Union has zero financial problems.

[poster1122]

There's a very easy way to justify this. If they can show they made $9M or more off of it, for instance. Then it's a wise advertising expense. Or maybe it was a boondoggle.

Until you get the numbers on revenue, it's a little unfair to say whether it's a good or bad use of the money. It's just the mirror image of a girl I used to know who always bragged about how much she saved at the store, but never talked about how much she spent.

[AN2009]

I hope these sports sponsorships get nixed... These bank executives deserve to be thrown out!

[Clayton139]

I agree ! This should be STOP NOW !
Where is our Politicians or watchdogs !

[katnip]

Shocking.....when Daddy bails you out, is the lesson ever learned?

[redkim]

So do the politicians who supported giving them our money.

[tomas0808]

In the coming years these teams/athletes are gonna regret wearing some bank's logo. They will hated just as much as the banks

[apoliticalchick]

If only they were charged with the task of squandering as much money in as little time as possible, instead of running a company. They would go from miserable failures to the toast of the town faster than you can blink.
http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/

[WasteNJ]

You throw a dog a Sirloin steak because he's begging, and then you scream out with righteous anger, "I don't like the way he's eating that steak!"

No strings=No strings

[FDRJFKLBJ]

The banks have a private phone line to Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke.

[hortonhearsawho2]

how's that private line to the asylum working there for u....

[Emlyn]

Amend that to a prvate phone line to the dirty Republicans.

[bygollymissmolly]

Oh yeah. No why would they want to do that when they know that the next half of the TARP funds are going to have some very serious conditions set upon any money they get and that there will be serious oversight.

Personally, I think that there will be few banks asking for any more cash. They really don't need it and once they realize it won't be "free money" like they got from Bush/Paulson, they will not even ask.

[Carolab]

Marketing is overdone in this country, driving up the cost of goods and services, all to generate revenues for the corporate media. Sales are what drove the economy in this nation.

[MoeB]

I'm a little iffy on this one. While I don't like millions being spent on banners and the such, I do think advertising is necessary for the viability of these companies going forward. Maybe some of the advertising expenses are a bit over the top in terms of cost, but I don't want us to go too far. I mean, should a bailout mean that we control EVERY aspect of these companies and their decisions?

[bygollymissmolly]

If there ever was a time to "lay low" now is it for any bank that got bailout money. They are simply tone deaf and deserve what they get. If I was in the market for a bank, the last place I would put my money would be in a bank that took bailout money and then spent millions on sports advertising.

[bygollymissmolly]

I mean, should a bailout mean that we control EVERY aspect of these companies and their decisions?
----------­----------­-----
You betcha. If the US taxpayer is becoming a shareholder in a bank, they need to have the ability to control what they do with our taxpayer dollars. Like telling them they can't use the money to buy a competitor or squander it on skyboxes at sporting events and sports advertising.

Tell me, has anyone here ever chosen a bank based on their television advertising on sporting events?

[Hades Hellspawn]

Well this article was highlighting those 'over the top' expenditures by banks. I don't see why Citi should be naming any stadium for $400mil, especially in this economic climate. I for one think that people (or its elected representatives) should control every aspect of these companies. After all, its their money. Once they pay the people back with interest, they can then go about their crazy spending ways till the next big economic meltdown.

[Rockwell]

Oh come on! Banks still have to run a business and part of that is marketing, including sports sponsorships.

Calling them out on obscene bonuses and wild parties is one thing. But I don't want Congress, or HuffPo for that matter, regulating every aspect of their business.

Free Market run amok is crazy and we are starting to reel that in. But a market place that's micro-managed by government is called socialism and that's just as insane.

Reigning in runaway capitalism is one thing. Putting it in a straight jacket is another.

[tomas0808]

Yeah, but the last time our economy was sustainable (no deficit) was the late 50's early 60's. Some of the Democratic administrations managed to keep it under control but aside from that the national debt has ballooned. Maybe it's time to consider that banks should do what they were doing then, holding people's money, making safe investments and doling out 5-10 year mortgages. Banks getting mixed up in all this other junk hasn't worked out so well.

[Emlyn]

The last time we had a balanced budget - Bill Clinton.

[1murillo]

I agree with sanywhere. Thirty-second superbowl spots were ~$2,500,000 per. That's about two minutes of ads. As a major business, it is a decision whether or not to advertise during this major campaign event.

It would be problematic if BofA spent all of the billions of dollars for the game, but that accusation isn't suggested.

[bygollymissmolly]

Do you actually know anyone who decided to do business with a bank based on their super bowl advertising. That is nothing but wasted money and it smelled to high heavens at this particular time in our history. Those people are completely tone deaf.