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

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

More proof Republicans hate America.

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US Senate should strip a "Buy American" clause from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan, the chamber's top Republican said Monday amid anger at the restriction from US allies.

"I don't think we ought to use a measure that is supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted to set off trade wars when the entire world is experiencing a downturn in the economy," said Senator Mitch McConnell.

Asked whether he would support trying to strip the measure from what is now roughly an 888-billion-dollar economic stimulus package, the Republican minority leader told reporters: "I think it's a bad idea to put it in a bill like this, which is supposed to be about jump starting the economy, yes.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090202/pl_afp/uspoliticseconomytrademcconnell

What is the point of a stimulus package if it does not stimulate the US economy?

[GrouchoMarxist]

Yes...the tr0lls are trying to do all they can to distract from that bit of news.

Why do Republicans hate America?

[SmellyOne]

Listen, you're dense if you think that protectionism is the answer. How can you call someone who is against protectionism hateful towards our country? Our economy feeds a lot of other economies!!!!! We want the sytem to start moving again, N O T slow down!!!!

Egads!!!!

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Oh SmellyOne your logic smells bad. This is government purchasing and they should buy American to stimulate the economy. This also includes only hiring American citizens.

It would be insane to buy foreign buses for example to bolster mass transit. It would be even more insane to give foreign contractors business paid for by tax payer money. This is not the same as private purchasing.

Why do you hate America?

You cannot spin this one away.

[mrsmdressup]

According to Saturday's Toronto Star they have to back down on "Buy American" in some circumstances, particularly when it comes to trade with Canada. Canada supplies much of the northeast's hydro and the US buys all of our oil and gas. Canada is rich with natural resources and it would be almost impossible to not import raw materials for production. Basically, in many areas, Canada can hold the US hostage. Like it or not, that's the truth.

[SmellyOne]

I'm starting to think we should be mad at Congress for allowing this to happen.

Giving money to banks! WTF?

[EllisWyatt]

How many United States Presidents, in the last 100 years, played intercollegiate athletics? The lessons learned on those playing fields served them well while in office.

[parrotkisser]

With or without a helmet?

[ThunderclapNewman]

Immaterial and wildly off-topic.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Gerry Ford was one h3ll of a football player, for instance..­.that sure served him well when he was proposing those

Whip
Inflation
Now

buttons...

[rubygreen]

I wonder if thats why, later in life, he was always falling down.

[FatherKindly]

And how many were cheerleaders? I understand that George W. Bush was a madman with those pom-poms!

[hortonhearsawho2]

Rick perry at texa a and m...

[williamg]

I do agree, sports are important (at least in my life).


And if weren't for athletics, George W Bush never would have been a male cheerleader in prep school.

Never understood why Democratic groups never smeared Bush with that.

[KillBillV2]

WOW WHAT IS UP WITH YAHOO HOMEPAGE? Are the full of republicans? Look at the Yahoo's news section:
• Trying to save nomination, Daschle apologizes for $128K tax error
• Republicans call for more mortgage relief in stimulus plan
• Crisis leaves up to 26 million migrants without jobs in China
• Kentucky asks Obama to speed up storm
• Texas prisoners riot for the second time in two months
• Twittering Republicans outnumber Democrats two-to-one

[NatteringNabob]

but. . . but. . . the librul media!

[SmellyOne]

C o n s p i r a c y s R 4 k o o k s . . .

[gwhizz]

Twittering Republicans would be a great name for a rock band.

[pushpin22]

...ehh this isn't really as bad as some of the stories I've heard, as most of this money is considered an advertising investment. It's in their interest to have their names out there and associated with positive things. It's not like they would pay out this money if it didn't ultimately make money for them, even in the good times. In the bad times, it's good business to invest in tried and true methods of earning money.

If HP and other news outlets are going to demonize sports sponsorships and such, then you can say goodbye to all your favorite sports teams and events....­no one will be able to pay for them. Do you think ticket prices alone support these athletes' paychecks?

[AutumnRecluse]

I don't understand this witch hunt. It's like a very uninformed journalist decided to make a big deal out of these advertisement investments because of the Super Bowl.

[UncommonSenz]

No, it is the SIZE of those investments.

I wonder how bad things would have to get before you might admit that SOMETHING has to give on the bailed out banks side of things.

Everyone right now, every business, every citizen, every level of government, is faced with cutbacks, where you make hard choices and decide to give up something you cannot afford.

Spending millions on this type of low return sponsorship is a dumb use of their money, which is in part, OUR MONEY.

[pushpin22]

This is exactly what I mean. How is a company supposed to spend this money then, if not investing it? It feels like there is no right answer.

Regardless of how you felt about the bailout funds in the first place, now that it's in place, it's in the nations self interest for it to work. And yet the media crucifies every company no matter what they do (not that there haven't been some gross abuses). How is any company supposed to get its feet back underneath them while everyone is trying to tear them down?

[hardybear]

Maybe athletes don't need those ludicrous sums.

[pushpin22]

I would never pretend to be in support of the extra-high salaries some athletes receive. My point is that this particular way of spending money is no where near the gross irresponsibility that some companies have shown (see: citigroup's private jet and recent wall street bonuses). I agree they should be held accountable for their actions, but this is a wise business decision.

[frantaylor]

Good riddance I say. What do we need them for? Something to bet on?

[evie]

NOT WITH OUR MONEY!!!!! I don't care what private companies do with their money. That would be their business. It is no longer their business. IT IS OUR MONEY. I don't care what they pay the athletes -- the sports organizations already get tax breaks and have their stadiums built for them. This is BS pure and simple.

[pushpin22]

It is subtle and detailed analysis of the current crisis like yours that is sure to help us get out of this situation. With the cunning intellect of a four year old refusing to share her barbies, you get to the root of the problem that faces us all.

I hope you're proud of yourself for your outburst. It's easy to be angry and lash out at people when they're down, it's much more difficult to try and rebuild the American economy when faced with uniformed citizens like you who are out for only themselves and their own interests. In fact, it's people who think like you who got us here in the first place. A nasty attitude is just as harmful at the top of a wall street bank as on an anonymous blog post.

[intellect4]

Right just like they wouldn't spend billions on trying to retain the best of the best of CEO's? I agree that it is in their best interest to continue tried and true methods of earning money, but being the lead sponsor of the super bowl experience, is that really the best method? The problem throughout the professional sport industry is that teams and leagues have failed for many years to realize they are entertainment and as such should be required to keep themselves afloat. During good economic times it is easier and prudent to do this through corporate sponsorships, but when times are bad why should sports teams/ leagues not suffer tightening of the purse strings just like the rest of us?

[pushpin22]

If viewership for events like the Superbowl was down because of the economy, I would agree with you. But when an industry is doing well, there is no point on taking away their money just because everyone else is suffering. Advertisers will still pay the big bucks to buy time slots on sport broadcasts because it's still a good investment, regardless of the technical definition of whether sports teams are entertainment or something else.

Oddly enough, traditionally during rough economic times, viewership for events like the Superbowl and the Oscars tends to be higher, as people enjoy the distraction from their not so great lives.

[rbspickles]

This is why most of us were against the (scam) bailout. We knew in our hearts that it was just a way to get more money from us before the bottom falls out. It's to the point now that we all look like clowns and the bankers are, well, laughing all the way to the bank....pu­n intended. grrrrrrrrr.

[AutumnRecluse]

That's correct banks. You accepted Government money which means you are not allowed to advertise! The socialist government now dictates how you do business, including where and how you advertise.

All those sport fans you enticed by marketing at their events are no longer your domain. We need to close the baseball and football fields to potential customers, and only do that the socialist government tells us to do.

STOP ADVERTISING AND FALL DEEPER INTO OUR CLUTCHES!!!!

[IronPalm]

PSA to follow....­.

[doneflyin]

Oh calm yourself!

[streak of rin tin tin]

It's OUR money. Now go run your kool-aid stand into the dirt, and beg the gov. for a handout.

[AutumnRecluse]

Then it's your money to lose. If you want to stop the bank from trying to entice new customers and return the investment the government made then you are asking to lose OUR MONEY.

[UncommonSenz]

The question is not IF they are advertising but HOW they are advertising.

My guess is that the ROI from expenditures like $800K for tents is probably pretty low. So, just as corporate tax cuts have a return of .30 for every dollar spent while increases in food stamps return $1.76 for each dollar spent, the only issue is are they wasting money on something like this that could be better spent somewhere else.

And if you are so fearful of the "socialist" bogeyman, then run your company well enough NOT to come crying to the taxpayer because you are "too big to fail".

[AutumnRecluse]

You have no idea how effective this marketing campaign is:

"According to the Bank of America, the official bank of the NFL, its NFL partnerships and product tie-tins "generate significant revenue streams." The bank said it was legally required to fulfill its contract to be an NFL sponsor and that its NFL product sales had already increased since the Experience began Jan. 24. "

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6782719&page=1

[Servility]

Since China has bought a huge amount of US "junk bonds" - what if they decided to start telling Obama how they wanted things ran? I can just see the headlines in China: Obama told to park Airforce One.

[AutumnRecluse]

Hahaha, very very well written!

[streak of rin tin tin]

First Lady Obama was just on TV talking about education instead of boms. I truly love everything this most beautiful woman stands for.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Wasn't she great? :)

[rubygreen]

She was terrific!

[FatherKindly]

She was wonderful. I think she is incapable of the self-satisfied smirks and glowering scowls that characterized the Bush women.

[mirrimatmlw]

Are we supposed to get upset about, as just one example, Bank of America being the main corporate sponsor for the Metropolitan Opera's summer "Concerts in the Park" series too? Or corporate sponsorship of PBS programs?

Rich individuals---and our equivalent now is the large corporation---have been sponsoring sporting and cultural events since the time of Athens and Rome at least, both as advertising and as part of the nebulous concept of "civic duty".

Frankly, at this point I would encourage such behavior to some degree. The amounts in question are probably not higher than the obscene "bonuses" (actually deferred lump-sum salary so misnamed; "bonus" is contingent on actually being useful and productive, in my book) paid to executives who have proven dangerously optimistic and risk-seeking, and they actually have the potential to producew something approaching civic "good". Just ask the folks in Pittsburgh this morning.

If nothing else, these grants and donations and sponsorships keep people in jobs they might not ordinarily have: producing programs at PBS, singing on a stage and not in the subway, playing games which give people a sense of community (ask any member of Red Sox nation, or South-Side Chi---White Sox---vs. North-Side---Cubs), and in that case, even helping keep support staff working and vendors in business. Not a bad deal.

[evie]

NOT WITH OUR MONEY. Again, I don' care what corporations do with THEIR OWN MONEY.

125,000 jobs lost in January. Explain that away.

[Episcopagan]

EllisWyatt
Athletics is a vital part of the curriculum. Sports, especially team sports, build life skills to take into private enterprise and/or public service later in life.
Posted 02:50 PM on 02/02/2009

If it is such a "vital part" of the curriculum, why is participation not mandated?

No university mandates participation, shortbus. They DO mandate academic classes.

[kellygrrrl]

"mandated" -- geez, it's not even paid for. you know how much it costs to have your kid on a high school squad?

[EllisWyatt]

It is patently obvious that sports has a negative connotation in your life experience. I am sorry that you seem so disturbed by athletics and athletes. I wish you well,.

[Episcopagan]

No, shortbus. You posted that it was a "vital part of the CURRICULUM"

Show us where participation is a part of the CURRICULUM of any college.

[kellygrrrl]

your children look far too young to be in public school, much less on an athletic team.

btw, have you removed their names and photos from your public profile yet?
geez, talk about irresponsible parenting.

[UncommonSenz]

They don't mandate that a school have a museum, or an art gallery- does that mean those things are not "vital parts" of a university.

The whole idea that they are voluntary (just as it is voluntary WHICH classes you choose to take) is in line for finding the parts of a university that enrich your college experience.

I enjoyed the collegiate sports experience, on campus. I also enjoyed the local music scene at the University commons, the art gallery (with stuff I could never figure out but liked trying) and the tiny film festival they had.

I wouldn't want to take any of those experiences away from anyone else. How about live and let live a bit.

[Episcopagan]

Museums and art galleries are not part of the CURRICULUM.

[solopico]

Actually, shortbus, physical education is mandated in almost all K-8 schools, and sometimes into High School.

I'm guessing - just a hunch - that you had a bad experience playing dodge-ball or badmitton, sometime around 6th or 7th grade?

Don't worry, shortbus - they'll never make you play those bad, bad sports again...

[Episcopagan]

Shortbus did not mention physical education.

Shortbus posted about organized sports being part of the CURRICULUM.

[kellygrrrl]

meanwhile, back on Main Street, Mr. and Mrs. Worker, cannot even afford to let their kid be on a baseball or football team.

the head of the Athletics Dept at the local high school told me that many kids who made cheer, dance, b-ball or f-ball teams had to drop out when their parents were informed of the estimated cost for the season

[GrouchoMarxist]

That's a huge problem in public schools...­and the same thing, only moreso, with the arts.

[kellygrrrl]

yup

[hardybear]

It's approaching criminal.

[inorbit]

Hey, this is "marketing" how dare you all complain!!

[pjones006]

Welcome back. I agree that it is marketing and have no problem with it. Just don't waste it on wnba marketing, only real sports.

[drjay79]

I don't see one customer out there saying "hey they sponser X I'll move my money there", what a waste.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Tell that to all the people who have credit cards emblazoned with the Yankees/Red Sox/Steelers/pick a team name logos.

[UncommonSenz]

That's not the way sponsorships work (or how most advertising works for that matter).

What it does, long term, is register them as a "brand name" in your mind, without even knowing it.

When you go to grab a toothpaste, and let's say you don't have your regular brand there, as you scan that wall of choices, some you will recognize and have an impression of, even though you have never tried them. THAT is when advertising works, by influencing that choice.

But sponsorships are LONG-TERM investment­s... things that payoff years down the road. BoA cannot be spending lavishly on some 5-year plan. It needs results now!

[AutumnRecluse]

You should take a marketing class.

[Episcopagan]

Funny thing about these publicly financed sports facilities?

Most of the land on which they were constructed was obtained through "Eminent Domain."

The same Eminent Domain conservatives oppose.

Legislation to control Eminent Domain, proposed by Republicans, specifically exempted the acquisition of land for sports facilities.

[GrouchoMarxist]

But of course.

[EllisWyatt]

Not all Republicans are conservatives little buddy. Not all Democrats are liberal.

[Episcopagan]

But all people who admire Ayn Rand are d!psh*ts

[streak of rin tin tin]

Unrepentant p u n k s is what they are. They would steal the gold out of their mama's mouth.