Today Manchester City announced a sponsorship deal for their stadium that means it will be named after the airline Etihad, in a deal worth up to £300m over ten years, which includes sponsorship of the area around the stadium and various other interests.
I’ve yet to encounter a City fan who was remotely concerned at this news – far from it, as it was greeted as a two-fingered salute to Michele Platini and his financial fair play rules. It was common knowledge anyway – news of this deal has been rumoured for many months now, it was always going to happen as part of the sheikhs’ second phase of being economically self-sufficient.
Elsewhere though, there was outrage. Waving the placards most vigorously of all was the ever-entertaining Ollie Holt of the Mirror. He was depressed, distraught, devastated even at the news. Here are some of his thoughts on Twitter:
There are many ways in which the current owners of Manchester City have shown class. Renaming the stadium after a sponsor isn’t one of them.
I know part of the answer is FFP but if City have got so much cash, why do they have to sell a piece of their soul for stadium naming rights?
Many City fans saying they don’t care about stadium renaming because new stadium never had an identity anyway. Sad comment on the game.
Is it acceptable then to change name of team too? Presumably all in favour of Etihad Stadium would be fine with Etihad City as name of team.
Now if Maine Road had been re-named, I’d be rather more upset, as would a lot of City fans. But it hasn’t. What is being re-named is an eight year old stadium that didn’t have a set name anyway. How often have you heard a City fan refer to the City of Manchester Stadium? Some called it COMS, some called it Eastlands, some, like when getting a taxi to the ground, just call it “the city ground please mate”. Fans call their ground various names all the time, and will continue to call their ground what they want, sponsor or no sponsor.
In fact someone argued online of the loss of heritage in changing from Eastlands to the Etihad Stadium, the irony completely lost on him that Eastlands is not, and has never been the name of the ground – but it goes to show this deal changes nothing – fans and journalists alike have been happy to spend the last eight years calling the ground by a made-up name.
So I can see how in theory a re-name could be seen as sacrilege and offensive. One journalist commented that he would be disgusted if Celtic Park was re-named. But this is different, clearly. How can everyone not see this? This is not Celtic Park, this is not Wembley, Villa Park or Anfield. If it had happened eight years earlier no one would have batted an eyelid.
It was acceptable for Arsenal to move into a sponsored stadium without having to defend themselves, and Wigan and Bolton. It’s fine for Bayern Munich to do the same. Why the outrage now?
Inevitably the old misconception that Etihad actually translates to mean United was once more dug up out of the woodwork. It doesn’t, and I couldn’t care less if it did anyway, but if that’s all people have got to attack City with, then the outlook is definitely rosy.
It wouldn’t be questioned it if it was Liverpool. Spurs, Chelsea or the rags.
City fans are delighted to be associated with anything connected to the Middle East as their investment has transformed the footballing fortunes of our club. We are still in dreamland and reviving Wembley memories.
The stadium sponsorship is so much more than that as huges tracts of land are being bought up and prepared for building. The plans have yet to be finalised but already we know that a Sports Science centre, a 6th form college and national sporting centres are to be built with many other initiatives to follow. Partnerships with local Government have already been created and there is much speculation of what is to follow. Please don’t compare this to Arsenal’s Emirates deal. That was a strict stadium and shirt sponsorship. The deal with Etihad involves so much more. I am not saying it is better, or more valuable. I am just saying it is different
As you say “Football has been about money since Sky invented the game in 1992” and who benefitted from that the most? Manchester United who just happened to be the best team at the time. They were turn in less than a decade from a club worth less than 20 million to one worth getting on for 700 million.
Just imagine if Football had been reinvented by Sky in 1982 who big a club would Liverpool be now? Much much bigger than Manchester United thats for sure.
So now that Sky has skewed football by making United the force it is are the rest of the football world supposed to accept this forever because unless owners like City’s are allowed to do their thing to redress the huge finanical gap created by Sky we will watch United win the league ever year forever.
United were lucky when Sky came along now its City’s turn to be lucky because Sheikh Mansour came along just as Chelsea, Blackburn and others have been lucky in the past
…… why should Platini be allowed to maintain the status quo whilst pretending its FFP. Its not, its about keeping the exisiting big clubs big and stopping others from becomiing big.
Jealousy… Enough Said !
An excellent well written article. You could have also mentioned though, that Oliver Holt is a bitter, jealous, rag scum fan that writes for the stretford mirror thats never biased at all…