Chelsea F.C.'s Need for Stadium Sponsor Proves It Fumbled Samsung Deal
Chelsea F.C. are seeking a sponsor for the club’s stadium, Stamford Bridge. The price is between £100 million and £150 million for a period of 10 years. The move validates an argument BNET made in July: that Chelsea has drastically undervalued its current partnership with Samsung and is losing money because of it.
Chelsea is under considerable pressure to bring on board more sponsors. Owner Roman Abramovich invested about £700 million into Chelsea since 2003. The club lost £448.7 million in the five years following that. Last year the club lost £66 million.
Chelsea CEO Ron Gourlay, a former Umbro marketing director, said he needed a stadium sponsor to “create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive”. That’s a tacit admission that Chelsea has so far not been competitive. In terms of pricing for its lead shirt spot, Chelsea sits at 6th place in BNET’s Global Football Sponsorship Deal League (table below), earning just £12.5 million a year (£37.5 million over three years) with Samsung. Similarly, while Arsenal got a massive £100 million deal with airline Emirates for their lead sponsor slot, which included naming rights to the Gunners’ new stadium, that works out to only £6.7 million over the 15-year term of the pact — shockingly underpriced for a brand as big as Arsenal.
By comparison, Liverpool F.C. and Manchester United get about £20 million a year with Standard Chartered and Aon, respectively. Bayern Munich is attempting a deal with Audi that would raise its price into that area.
The Stamford Bridge deal will be most closely watched by Liverpool, who intend to build a new stadium in the city’s Stanley Park area to replace their current home, Anfield. Any deal Chelsea cut for Stamford bridge will set a benchmark for negotiations on Merseyside.
BNET’s Global Football Sponsorship Deal League:
- Liverpool: £20 million a year (£81 million over four years) with Standard Chartered
- Manchester United: £20 million a year (£80 million over four years) with Aon
- Real Madrid: £18.3 million a year (£55 million over three years) with Bwin.com
- Bayern Munich: £17 million a year (£68 million over four years) with T-Home
- Juventus: £15 million a year (£75 million over five years) with Tamoil
- Chelsea: £12.5 million a year (£37.5 million over three years) with Samsung
- Manchester City: £8m a year (£24 million over three years) with Etihad Airways.
- Arsenal: £6.7 million a year (£100 million over 15 years) with Emirates
Image by Flickr user Free-ers, CC.
Related:
- Audi’s Proposed £90M Sponsor Deal With Bayern Munich Could Be Football’s Biggest Ever
- Real Madrid’s New Deal With Bwin Suggests Chelsea’s Samsung Pact Is Underpriced
- Liverpool F.C. Wants £240M for Naming Rights to Stanley Park … Or Does It?
- Liverpool’s Standard Chartered Deal May Be Bigger Than Man. Utd’s Pact With Aon
- Is Chelsea’s New Sponsor Deal With Samsung Big Enough to Affect Its Debts?
- Arsenal’s £100M Sponsorship Deal With Emirates No Longer Looks Like a Good Deal
- Will Death of Ex-Saatchi CEO Dreyfus Lift Curse of Marseille?
- Manchester United Sign Aon to Replace AIG as Shirt Sponsor; Club Returns to Profitability
Jim Edwards, a former managing editor of Adweek, has covered drug marketing at Brandweek for four years, and is a former Knight-Bagehot fellow at Columbia University's business and journalism schools. Follow him on Twitter or send him an email.
BNET User Analysis